-------
Waterloo Permeable Reactive Wall
Field Trial 1991
• CFB Borden, Ontario, Canada
• Unconfined sand aquifer
• Groundwater flow velocity: 9 cm/day
• Water table: 2.5 m bgs
• Groundwater contaminants
. TCE 253 mg/L
. PCE 43 mg/L
• Reactive wall (20 m3)
• 22% granular iron and 78% coarse sand
Waterloo Field Trial
Reactive Materials I—Zero-Valent Metals
-------
Waterloo Field Trial
Waterloo Field Trial
Reactive Materials I—Zero-Valent Metals
-------
Waterloo Permeable Reactive Wall
Field Trial 1991
Permeable Wall
Bundle
Piezometer
Source
Flow
Direction
Waterloo Permeable Reactive Wall
Field Trial 1991
350 -
300 -
j= 250 -
•S
§ 20°-
2 150 •
0)
g 100 •
o
O „„
50 -
Permeable
TCE Wall
\
\T\ -
PCE /\
K ^ —
0 -i 1 1 1 1 1 — i i i i i i i i i i i
23456789 10
Distance Along Flow Path (m)
Reactive Materials I—Zero-Valent Metals
-------
Waterloo Permeable Reactive Wall
Field Triad 991
2000 •
.Q
a.
c 1500 •
£
*5
jS 1000 -
o
o
o
O 500 •
Permeable
Wall
cDCE > A VC not detected
l\
1,1-DCE v^ I \
0 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
23456789 10
Distance Along Flow Path (m)
Waterloo Permeable Reactive Wall
Field Trial Results
• Almost 5 years of consistent operation
• 90% TCE and 86% PCE removal
• Breakdown products (e.g., vinyl chloride)
degraded
• Insignificant amounts of precipitates
Reactive Materials I—Zero-Valent Metals
-------
Current Status (early 1999)-
PRBs for VOC Removal
22 full-scale systems
• 14 private facilities
. 3 U.S. DOD facilities
. 2 U.S. DOE facilities
• 3 other government facilities
Field Projects
• Full - Scale
• Pilot- Scale
• Australia
• Belfast
• Denmark (2)
• • Germany (3)
Reactive Materials
I—Zero-Valent Metals
-------
Technoiogy Acceptance
201
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Year
Primary Contaminants Treated
TCE
PCE
cDCE &VC
111TCA &
11DCA
Reactive Materials I—Zero-Valent Metals
-------
Long-Term Performance Data
Organic
• Consistent VOC degradation over several
years
• No evidence of microbial fouling
• No site has yet required "retrofitting" or iron
replacement
Long-Term Performance Data
Inorganic
Most carbonate precipitates occur at
upgradient interface (coring evidence) or in
upgradient mixed iron/gravel zones
Accumulation of precipitates over time may
cause porosity/permeability loss
No evidence of hydraulic plugging due to
precipitates
Reactive Materials I—Zero-Valent Metals
-------
Trends in Field Applications
• Database degradation rates in design
• Decrease in granular iron costs
• Sand-iron mixtures to accommodate
construction constraints
• Increase focus on plume characterization to
minimize installation costs
• Combined PRB/natural attenuation remedies
• Sequenced PRB remedies
Technology Advancements
• Degradation/removal of other contaminants
• Enhancements to increase degradation rates
• Long-term O&M procedures
• Innovative installation techniques
• Sequenced treatment (metal/biological)
• Source zone remediation
Reactive Materials I—Zero-Valent Metals
-------
Sequenced Treatment Zones
• Combine granular iron with other in situ
treatment technologies
• Key design parameter
• the ability of the treatment technologies to
accommodate geochemical changes from one
treatment zone to another
Synergy with Natural Biodegradation
Processes
• Both are reductive processes
• PRB enhances reducing environment
• Understand processes and incorporate into design
• Barrier location relative to source and compliance
point
• Relative reaction rates of parent and daughter
products
• Take advantage of available space and residence
time for natural biodegradation
Reactive Materials I—Zero-Valent Metals
-------
Natural Biodegradation
TCE
Concentration
Permeable
Barrier
'd —
Design
Basis
Distance
Compliance
Point
Target
Concentration
>;nc
Cost Effective Construction
Scenarios
Not
Compliant
Compliant
Overkill
1 i
«4> nr jn^
' '•
II
i — f~i i>
I ^j Compliance
m-
.
Treated Plume in
Plume PRB Panels Equilibrium
Distance
Reactive Materials I—Zero-Valent Metals
-------
-------
ollection and Interpretation of
Data II:
Tests:
an Calculations
-------
-------
EPA/ITRC/RTDF
Permeable Reactive Barrier Short Course
Collection and Interpretation of
Design Data II:
Laboratory and Pilot-Scale Tests
Design Calculations
BTDF
xvEPA
Path to PRB Design and
Emplacement
I Laboratory Testing j
Preliminary Design |*
A
[
Pilot Test
I Final Design |
Full-Scale Emplacement ;
Collection and Interpretation of Design Data II
Laboratory and Pilot-Scale Tests
Design Calculations
-------
Why Perform Laboratory Testing?
• Complex ambient water chemistry
• Atypical contaminants
• additives
• complex organic compounds
• Laboratory tests can be designed to confirm
assumptions (i.e., inexpensive)
• Comprehensive laboratory testing can be
reserved for most complex cases
Types of Laboratory Tests
Batch Tests
• Contaminants of
unknown
treatability
• Static conditions
• Relative reactivity
of different
materials
Column Tests
• Contaminants
known to degrade
Flowing conditions
Treatment rate in
candidate material
Collection and Interpretation of Design Data II
Laboratory and Pilot-Scale Tests
Design Calculations
-------
Schematic of Set-Up for Batch Tests
Aluminum Crimp Cap-
Teflon-lined Septa—v V
iv">
Simulated or Site Groundwater
Glass Vial
Reactive Granular Iron Material
Batch Reactivity Tests
Collection and Interpretation of Design Data II
Laboratory and Pilot-Scale Tests
Design Calculations
-------
»•:
Interpretation of Batch Test Data -
VOCs
• Plot VOC concentration vs. time
• Apply first-order rate equation to calculate half-
life
First Order Kinetics
C/C0 = e-kt
In (C/C0) = e-
C = measured or desired concentration
C0 = initial concentration
k = first order rate constant (t'1)
t = time
Collection and Interpretation of Design Data II
Laboratory and Pilot-Scale Tests
Design Calculations
-------
Half-Life (t 1/2)
t m = ln(2) / k = 0.693 / k
Usually expressed in units of minutes, hrs, days
Literature values may show "normalized" k, t1/2 (unit
surface area of reactive metal/ml of water)
Bench-Scale Design Studies
• Column tests using site groundwater
• Simulate site conditions
• Determine removal/degradation rates
• Changes in inorganic chemistry
Collection and Interpretation of Design Data II
Laboratory and Pilot-Scale Tests
Design Calculations
-------
Possible Triggers For Column
Studies
• Nitrate levels
• Non-chlorinated organic carbon content
• Dissolved oxygen
• DCA/DCM production
• Guar-based installation methods
• High (100s mg/L) total VOC concentrations
Column Treatability Study
Plexiglas
Column
Effluent Samples
riQn=
Solution Reservoir
Sampling
Ports
Influent
Sampling
Collection and Interpretation of Design Data
Laboratory and Pilot-Scale Tests
Design Calculations
-------
Laboratory Column
Apparatus
TCE
Flow Velocity=46 cm/day (1.5 ft/day)
Flow Velocity=85 cm/day (2.8 ft/day)
0 2.5 5 10 15 20 30
Column Distance (ft)
40 50
Collection and Interpretation of Design Data II
Laboratory and Pilot-Scale Tests
Design Calculations
-------
sects
8
CD
a
o
o i S
CD "• =»
«. TJ O
-
Organic Concentration (ng/L)
o
Organic Concentration (ng/L)
O
O
O
m
-
-------
Interpretation of Column Data—
VOCs
• Plot VOC concentration vs. distance along
column
• Convert to concentration vs. time profiles using
flow rate
• Apply first-order rate equation to calculate
half-life
Column Treatability Test Results
Compound
PCE
TCE
c/s 1,2-DCE
VC
Typical
Half-Life
(hours)
0.5-2
0.5-2
2-6
2-6
Typical
Half-Life
Compound (hours)
CT 0.5-1
TCM 1-3
1,1,1-TCA 0.5-2
Collection and Interpretation of Design Data II
Laboratory and Pilot-Scale Tests
Design Calculations
-------
Rate Constants for Degradation by Iron
Methanes
PCM
TCM
HCA
Ethanvs
1122TeCA
1112TeCA
111TCA
Ethencl
PCE
TCE
11DCE
t12DCE
C12DCE
VC
O CDGDOO
•o>» o
•- ....... oo « o
o sno» CD
oao
O»0
10
-I—i 11 mi] 1—i 11 mi) 1—i 11 ml| 1—i i i mi|
««-3 -~"2 ««•!
10"" 10" 10 10
kSR (Lm'2hr1)
Reference: Johnson, etal., 1996, EST30(8), 2634-2640
I.
Residence Time Calculation—
VOCs
• Assume concurrent production and degradation
of each VOC in solution
• Express this concurrent production and
degradation using first-order kinetic model
• Determine total residence time required
• Adjust residence times to account for lower field
groundwater temperatures
Collection and Interpretation of Design Data II
Laboratory and Pilot-Scale Tests
j Design Calculations
-------
Residence Time Calculation—
VOCs
Co,
|>
I
0)
o
O
O
Coc
Total Residence Time = tc > tA > tB
Residence Time (hr)
Co Initial
Concentration
PC Performance
Criteria
t Residence
Time
Geochemical Modeling of
Inorganic Column Data
• Assess mechanism of trace metal removal
• Examine potential precipitation/stability of
various mineral phases using saturation indices
• Decline in carbonate species can be used to
make (very) preliminary estimate of porosity
loss over time due to carbonate precipitation
Collection and Interpretation of Design Data II
Laboratory and Pilot-Scale Tests
Design Calculations
-------
Groundwater Flow Modeling Studies
Determine design velocity through treatment
zone
Determine length of system required to capture
plume
Assess potential for bypass/underflow
Groundwater Flow Modeling Studies
Combine aquifer characteristics and reactive
material properties
Effects of reactive material variability
Effects of changing material properties
over time
Permeable barrier configuration
Identification of monitoring well locations
: i!" .'•
Collection and Interpretation of Design Data II
Laboratory and Pilot-Scale Tests
Design Calculations
. ' • !
•• • .1 • • !'' ' :• ;'
-------
Groundwater Velocity through a PRB
For a continuous wall, groundwater velocity can
be approximated using the aquifer velocity:
V= Ki/n
V = groundwater flow velocity
K = hydraulic conductivity
i = hydraulic gradient
n = porosity
Model simulations are likely necessary for a
funnel and gate configuration
Example PRB Flow Model-
Assumptions
Hydraulic conductivity:
Homogeneous Aquifer: 10ft/d
Pea gravel: 500ft/d
Iron: 50ft/d
Hydraulic Gradient: 0.01 ft/ft
Pathline tick mark interval: 200 days
Head contour: 0.5 ft
Collection and Interpretation of Design Data II
Laboratory and Pilot-Scale Tests
Design Calculations
-------
I 1
Model Results—Uniform Flow Field
•.do
4*1
gjo
ff.
Model Results—Non-Uniform Residence Time in Gate
.lo
Collection and Interpretation of Design Data II
Laboratory and Pilot-Scale Tests
I Design Calculations
ii;;,
-------
Model Results—Modified Gate Design
aio
Model Results—Funnel and Multiple Gates
Collection and Interpretation of Design Data II
Laboratory and Pilot-Scale Tests
Design Calculations
-------
Model Results—Continuous Wall
Dimensions of PRB
• Residence time requirement (bench scale
studies/database)
• Treatment zone flow velocity (model results)
• Thickness = residence time x groundwater velocity
• Determine length and depth of system required to
capture plume, prevent underflow
Collection and Interpretation of Design Data II
Laboratory and Pilot-Scale Tests
I Design Calculations
-------
Field Applications
Pilot-scale testing
• at field site
• above-ground reactor
• small in situ system
Full-scale implementation
Pilots Demonstrating
"Proof of Concept"
• Data collection, velocity measurements, coring
. New York, 1995
• Lowry AFB, 1995
. Moffett Federal Airfield CA, 1996
. Dover AFB, DE, 1997
Collection and Interpretation of Design Data II
Laboratory and Pilot-Scale Tests
Design Calculations
-------
Pilot Installation—Moffett Field
Pilot Installation
Moffett Field
> • •- ,. ,.•.
Collection and Interpretation of Design Data II
Laboratory and Pilot-Scale Tests
Design Calculations
-------
Pilot Installation—
Lowry Air Force Base
Uncertainty in Measured Pilot-Scale
Degradation Rates
Detection Urns
(Retailed Concentration)
Distance
Collection and Interpretation of Design Data II
Laboratory and Pilot-Scale Tests
Design Calculations
-------
Pilot Installation—New York
Success in Meeting Regulatory
Criteria
In Situ Installation, New York (May 1995)
Compound
Influent
Cone, (ppb)
Powngradient
Cone, (ppb)
TCE
cDCE
VC
32 - 330
98 - 550
8.1 - 79
<1 -1.6
< 1 - 7.6
Collection and Interpretation of Design Data II
Laboratory and Pilot-Scale Tests
Design Calculations
-------
Pilot-Scale Degradation Rates
In Situ Installation, New York (May 1995)
Compound
Predicted
Half Life3
(hr)
Observed
Half Lifeb
(hr)
TCE
cDCE
VC
0.4 to 1.1
1.5 to 4.0
2.0 to 6.0
<4.0
3.0 to 5.0
5.0 to 10.0
a from laboratory studies
b two point curves using detection limit as second point and measured
field velocity
Full-Scale Design and Implementation
• Is a pilot needed?
• Is model refinement needed?
• Hydraulic and geochemical characterization along
line of installation
• Choice of construction method vs PRB
dimensions
Collection and Interpretation of Design Data II
Laboratory and Pilot-Scale Tests
Design Calculations
-------
-------
liance Monitoring, Performance
and Lona-Term
-------
-------
EPA/ITRC/RTDF
Permeable Reactive Barrier Short Course
Compliance Monitoring,
Performance Monitoring and
Long-Term Maintenance for
Permeable Reactive Barriers
1
KTDF
-&EPA
Path to PRB Design and
Emplacement
S Laboratory Testing
1 — * pn
IZ
Site Characterization Data
1
Conceptual Model
I' • l-l
Jiiminary uesugn *
1
Pilot Test
\
Final Design 1
4
1 Full-Scale Emplacement |
PRB Compliance Monitoring and Permitting
-------
Compliance Monitoring
• Objective
• determine compliance with the applicable groundwater
standard or criteria
• Regulatory requirements for monitoring
• Focus is on the site and compliance point
Procedure
Identify groundwater standard/criteria
Develop monitoring network based on
groundwater modeling
Determine compliance points/wells
Prepare monitoring plan/QAPP
Monitor for compliance with standard
PRB Compliance Monitoring and Permitting
-------
Monitoring Well
Construction Methods
Aquifer wells
• follow state-specific requirements for installation
Wells within or near the PRB
• small-diameter wells (1-2" wells)
• typically no sand pack or grout required
• installation
• suspended in reactive media prior to backfilling
• pushed or drilled into the reactive media
Installation of Monitoring Wells
Pilot Permeable Reactive Barrier
Moffett Federal Airfield
PRB Compliance Monitoring and Permitting
-------
"II"
Monitoring Weli Placement at
Moffett Field
Monitoring Well Placement at
Moffett Field
I ' •»
PRB Compliance Monitoring and Permitting
-------
Sampling
Representative samples require special
procedures
Retention time within PRB cannot be
compromised
For all wells—low-flow sampling procedure
recommended
For wells within or near the PRB—low-flow
sampling and collection of smaller sample
volumes is necessary
Low-Flow Sampling
Benefits for PRB
• lower purge volume, slower rate
• representative samples of mobile fraction within
groundwater
• retention time within PRB unaffected
• more "passive" sampling method
PRB Compliance Monitoring and Permitting
-------
Low-Flow Sampling Procedure
• Use of peristaltic, low-speed submersible or bladder pumps
• Continuous monitoring of water quality parameters
• dissolved oxygen
• specific conductance
• redox potential
• turbidity
• pH
• temperature
• Sample collected upon equilibration of parameters
• ±10 percent for DO and turbidity
• ±3 percent for conductance
• <0.3 feet groundwater drawdown
• Typical purge rate 100-500 mL/min
Monitoring Frequency Considerations
• Groundwater flow velocity
• Reactive media residence time
• Contaminants of concern
• Fluctuation in contaminant concentration
• Location and placement of PRB
• Seasonal fluctuations in groundwater elevation
PRB Compliance Monitoring and Permitting
-------
Monitoring Frequency
• First quarter after installation
• monthly monitoring—analytical and field parameters
• weekly monitoring—groundwater levels
• Initial monitoring program (1-2 years)
• quarterly monitoring—analytical and field parameters
• monthly monitoring—groundwater levels
• Long-term monitoring
• Frequency of monitoring can be reduced based on
operational stability
• Post-closure monitoring
• monitoring for leachable constituents of reactive media
or contaminants of concern
Monitoring Frequency
Dependent on groundwater velocity and
groundwater modeling
After installation an equilibrium period may
occur during which data may not represent the
steady state monitoring conditions of the PRB
Periodic evaluation and adjustment of
monitoring program should be conducted
PRB Compliance Monitoring and Permitting
-------
Monitoring Frequency
Suggested Permeable Reactive Barrier Monitoring Frequency
For Inorganics and Radionuclide Contamination
P: •:• '" !! -' II! - ,& :.;,..• .. •,.... •• ;. ,,;;, •>. , •, ,j •»•,„•, , > •• ,i: • • .-:
Parameter
Frequency
A - First Quarter After Installation
Field Parameters
Inorganic Analytes
***
Inorganic Contaminants
Radionuclides
Groundwater Levels
Monthly
Weekly (until equilibrium is reached)
B - Initial Monitoring Program
(1 - 2 years)
Field Parameters
Quarterly
Inorganic Analytes
***
Inorganic Contaminants
Radionuclides
Groundwater Levels
Monthly, then to be determined
C - Long Term Monitoring
Field Parameters
Inorganic Analytes
Inorganic Contaminants
Radionuclides
Groundwater Levels
Quarterly
(may be modified based on
performance)
D • Post-Closure Monitoring
Inorganic Contaminants of
Concern
Leachable Constituents from
Reactive Media
Radionuclides of Concern
To be determined based upon the
closure method and data collected
during operation of the PRB
-------
Suggested PRB Monitoring
Frequency For Chlorinated
Solvent Contamination
Parameter
Frequency
A - First Quarter After Installation
Field Parameters
Organic Analytes
Inorganic Analytes
Groundwater Levels
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Weekly (until equilibrium is
reached)
B - Initial Monitoring Program
(1-2 years)
Field Parameters
Organic Analytes
Inorganic Analytes
Groundwater Levels
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Monthly, then to be determined
C - Long Term Monitoring
Field Parameters
Organic Analytes , , Quarterly
— (MI ay ^ teduced based upon
Inorganic Analytes np«r*tmnni Rtahility^
Groundwater Levels
D - Post-Closure Monitoring
Inorganic Parameters (Fe & To be determined based upon
other leachable constituents) data collected during operation
-------
w
K,
Monitoring Parameters
'. ,fSf I*':'-. f!" n-ijltl El .'•• ' -; •• . ^^
Field and Laboratory Parameters
Analytc or Parameter
Field Parameters
Water Level
PH
Ground water temperature
Rcdox Potential
Dissolved Oxygen
Soecifk Conductance
Turbidity
Salinity
Organic Anatytes
Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs)W
Inorganic Analytes
MettlsCd): K,Na,Ca,Mg,
Fc,AI.Mn.Ba.V,Cr*',Ni
Metals: Or**
Aniom: SO*, Cl, Br, F
NO,
Alkalinity
Other
TOS
TSS
TOG
DOC
Radionuelides
Field Screening
Gross a/ Gross p" activities
(screening)
Specific Isotopes
(Am,Cs.Pu,Tc,U)
Analytical Method
ample Volume
[b]
Sample Container
Preservation
In-hole Probe
In-hole Probe or Flow-thru
Cell
In-hole Probe
Flow-thru Cell
Flow-thru Cell [a]
Reid Instrument
Field Instrument
Field Instrument
USEPA SW846, Method
8240
USEPA SW846, Method
8260a or b
40 CFR. Part 136, Method
624
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
40 mL
40 mL
40 mL
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Glass VOA vial
Glass VOA vial
Glass VOA vial
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
4°C, pH<2
No pH adjustment
4°C, pH<2
No pH adjustment
4°C, pH<2
No pH adjustment ,.
40 CFR, Part 136, Method
200.7
40 CFR, Part 136,
or HACK method
40 CFR, Part 136, Method
300.0
40 CFR, Part 136, Method
300.0
40 CFR. Part 136, Method
310.1
40 CFR, Part 136,
Method 160.2
40 CFR, Part 136,
Method 160.1
40 CFR, Part 136,
Method 415.1
40 CFR, Part 136,
Method 415.1
lOOmL
200ml
lOOmL
lOOmL
lOOmL
100 mL
100 mL
40 mL
40 mL
Polyethylene
Glass, Plastic
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
Polyethylene
4°C, pH<2,
(HNO,)
4°C
4°C
4°C
4°C
Glass, Plastic
Glass, Plastic
Glass
Glass
4"C
4°C
4°C,pH<2(H2SO4)
4°C,pH<2(H2SO4)
HPGe gamma spectroscopy
FBDLER
Gas Proportional Counting
Alpha Spectroscopy
Gamma Spectroscopy
None
[e]
125ml
[e]
4L
None
[e]
polyethylene
[e]
polyethylene
None
[e]
pH<2, (HNO3)
[e]
pH<2, (HNO3)
Sample Holding Time
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
14 Days
7 Days
14 Days
7 Days
14 Days
7 Days
180 days
24 hours
28 days
48 hours
14 days
7 days
7 days
28 days
28 days
None
[e]
N/A
[e]
6 months
[a] - If <1.6 mg/L use photometric field kit for analysis.
[b] - See Section 7.4 (Sampling) of this report for variances in sample volumes.
[c j - GC methods may b"e substituted once identity of compounds and breakdown products are verified.
[d] - Other metals analytes which are characteristic of the media should be included.
[e] - General guidelines, the parameter is a laboratory specific parameter.
-------
i
0)
Compliance Monitoring Parameters
• Field parameters—pH, temperature, redox
potential, dissolved oxygen, conductance,
turbidity, salinity, groundwater level
• Organic analytes (as necessary)
• Inorganic analytes (as necessary)
• Radionuclides (as necessary)
Monitoring Well Placement
Groundwater modeling will determine the
placement and the number of monitoring wells
required
Wells may need to be installed in different
water-bearing units or at multiple levels within
the same water-bearing zone
Dependent on configuration of PRB
(i.e., funnel and gate vs. continuous wall)
Negotiations between involved parties
PRB Compliance Monitoring and Permitting
-------
General Guidelines for
Well Placement
. Upgradient of PRB
• Downgradient of PRB
• Sidegradient of PRB
. Possible within PRB (if PRB installed within a
plume)
Hypothetical Example of Monitoring Well Placement
Figure2_Funnel and Gate Nofc:Forreference^
conditions must dictate placement.
GroundwaterFIow
ii
PRB Compliance Monitoring and Permitting
-------
Hypothetical Example of Monitoring Well Placement (cont)
Figures Continuous Wall
* F Note: For reference only. Site specific
Permeable Reactive Barrier
^\
D •
D_^
D»
•
C
-
C
0
C
•
conditions must dictate placement
• B :—
— Reactive Media
B
A
• B " - -
•
Not to Scale
Groundwater Flow
F
Plan View
KEY' Flow Lines
& Potential Monitoring
Performance Monitoring
Verification of performance of wall as designed
• also an element of QA for installation/emplacement
• verification of achievement of intended
hydrogeochem istry
Focus is on the wall itself, not the site or
compliance points or boundaries
• early warning for decrease in wall performance
Not typically considered regulatory monitoring
requirements
PRB Compliance Monitoring and Permitting
-------
Performance Monitoring-
Extent/Scope
• Duration and extent of monitoring determined
by:
. site-specific hydrogeochemistry
• performance sampling objectives
• negotiations among involved parties
• current status of specific barrier technology
development, maturity
Performance Monitoring—What
• Changes in system reactivity
• Changes in site and reactive wall hydraulics
over time
• Changes in contaminant residence time
• Short circuiting
iTI. !
PRB Compliance Monitoring and Permitting
-------
Performance Monitoring
Reactivity
• collection of core samples of the reactive media
• analysis of emplaced iron over time
• surface precipitates
SEM Photo-Iron Surface
PRB Compliance Monitoring and Permitting
-------
, ......... in •< ...... ;iii|!i
'i" I! ........ i ...... mi
1'1 ..... Bii ..... PK " ............ ..... i ..... a1 ...... ::«r '?! ......... PI • T '"' t ' "!» \ w ..... i J™sw ;| i f ..... "'ti >/n ..... ifi .......... i ...... "™ ..... ,-J «i ...... r:
> i ai'swfflt nil!:™ si"!
.1' '.II
Precipitation of Oxides on Iron
Figure Courtesy P. Tratnyek, Oregon Graduate Institute
Performance Monitoring
Hydraulics
• head measurements
• tracer tests (research)
• in situ flow meters
Monitorir
PRB Compliance Monitoring and Permitting
-------
Performance Monitoring
• Contaminant degradation/transformation
. contaminants of concern and by-products
• Geochemical indicator parameters
• pH, redox potential, DO, ferrous iron, sulfide, alkalinity
• cheap, inexpensive field tests
Multi-level Sampling
High resolution of vertical distribution of
contaminants and other water quality data
"Passive" sampling of groundwater necessary
Identify short circuiting or changes in residence
time affecting contaminant removal
Effective for tracer testing
PRB Compliance Monitoring and Permitting
-------
li>; l'f;j!
mil1'
;" fj.1
i'lii!
Design Plan for the Permeable Barrier Installed
at the Somersworth Sanitary Landfill, \\\\
Cross-Sectional
View (ETI, 1996)
3/4"
diameter
Vertical
- ./ Depth
of
Backfill
Vertical
Depth of
Reactive
Material
Thickness of
<— Reactive Material —*•
(4ft)
[ j coarse sand H clay backfill U monitoring well
Ejj reactive gate material I I bedrock
Long-Term Maintenance
• Development of operation and maintenance
plan as well as a closure plan is essential
• Contingency sampling plan necessary in the
event the PRB fails to meet performance or
compliance criteria
• Reactive media restoration or replacement
PRB Compliance Monitoring and Permitting
I
1 1
' til
-------
Long-Term Maintenance-
Hydraulic Considerations
• Accumulation of precipitates over time may
cause porosity/permeability reduction
• Carbonate precipitates occur at upgradient
interface (coring evidence)
• Iron (oxy) hydroxides form on iron surface
• Microbial fouling
• To date, no evidence of hydraulic plugging due
to precipitates or fouling
Passive Collection with
Reactor Cells
i Collection Trench w/,
1 Impermeable Barrier
i Remediated
I Groundwater
Direction
USDOE Rocky Flats Mound Site Plume, Tetra Tech EM, Inc. 1998
PRB Compliance Monitoring and Permitting
-------
!"!:iii|1,
R I1.1'1! '!
'.'
II: J!':
" IS1'':
Operations and Maintenance
Rejuvenation technology is in development
stage
May consist of mechanical restoration or
replacement of affected section
Ultrasound techniques
A lump sum cost could be budgeted into O&M
once every 5-10 years
Considerations in PRB Maintenance
and Closure
• Loss of permeability through the reactive media
• Contaminant desorption from reactive media
• Potential for spent reactive material to provide a
future contaminant source
• Concentrations of contaminants (metals or
radionuclides) in reactive media affect disposal
options
• Reaching capacity of the reactive media
I • 1
I
\ i!' . :.:n
PRB Compliance Monitoring and Permitting
-------
CD
t3
CD
Considerations in PRB Maintenance
and ClOSUre (continued)
• Future use of property
• Cost of removal vs. long-term operation and
maintenance
• Regulatory requirements for closure
• Non-contaminant changes in downgradient
water quality
• The potential need for institutional controls
Performance Monitoring/
Long-Term Maintenance
Scope and extent of performance monitoring
expected to decrease with increasing
acceptance of technologies
Long-term maintenance requirements current
subject of intensive research
PRB Compliance Monitoring and Permitting
-------
"II"
IK.
II! , I
I"" If"
i:': 'fi;
ii 1,
Illn1"1'1'" I! I"
It"" '.I!::
v'li
;,
'I;: ff
-------
lacement Techniques
-------
-------
EPA/ITRC/RTDF
Permeable Reactive Barrier Short Course
PRB Emplacement Techniques
RTDF
vvEPA
Path to PRB Design and
Emplacement
Site Characterization Data
|
Laboratory Testing Conceptual Model
L
C
\
\ Pilot Test 1
|
| Final Design |
i
Full-Scale Emplacement 1
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
I
I «»"
t:,
Overview
• Current emplacement methods
• Recent emplacement advances
-I
Permeable Barrier Configurations
Continuous reactive wall
Funnel and gate
Alternative designs
• in situ reactor
. GeoSiphon cell (WSRC)
I •• ;; • ' '• ' (. K :ir;
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
Continuous Reactive Walls
Wall of reactive material extends across entire
plume
• continuous zone of reactive material
• no impermeable sections
• little disturbance of groundwater flow
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
,i It
"I in
it! 1
i '
Funnel and Gate
Low permeability funnel
• potential for flow around and beneath system
Permeable treatment gate
• higher velocity created in treatment zones
• well-defined treatment zone facilitates monitoring
Conceptual Funnel and Gate
Low Permeability Wall
• •
Pea * Gravel I
Granular I
Iron I
Pea • Gravel 1
Permeable Gate
Low Permeability Wall
Groundwater Flow
Monitoring Well*
'!!! 'fl if". ' -I
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
Comparison of Treatment Systems
Continuous
Wall
Volume reactive material Large
Residence time Greater
Flow system disturbance Small
Monitoring zone Large
Funnel
and Gate
Limited
Less
Large
Small
Full-Scale Systems
• 15 continuous reactive walls
• cofferdam (6)
• trenching machine (8)
• hydrofracturing (1)
• 5 funnel and gate systems
• slurry wall (3)
• sheet piling (1)
. HOPE (1)
• 2 in situ reaction vessel systems
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
Full-Scale Treatment Systems
Continuous Wall
• Sunnyvale, CA
• Sunnyvale, CA
• Elizabeth City, NC
• South Carolina
• New York
• Superfund Site, NJ
• Kansas City, MO
• Denmark (2)
• Fairfleld, NJ
• Watervliet, NY
• Sumter, SC
• Louisiana
• Seneca, NY
• Germany
Funnel & Gate
• Coffeyville, KS
• Lakewood, CO
• Colorado
• Oregon
• Vermont
Other
• Northern Ireland
• RFETS, CO
If
Example Site
100 ft. long, 30 ft. deep, 1.8 ft.f low-through thickness
Construction
Method
(unit cost)
1993 Funnel and Gate
(sheet pile funnels)
Continuous Trencher
(S500/linear feet)
Vibrated Beam/Mandrel
($10/sqft)
Jetting
($40 /sat sq ft)
Bioslurry Trench
($10/sqtt)
Mobilization
$50,000
$75,000
$75,000
$50,000
$50,000
Construction Iron
$175,000 $312,000
$50,000 $189,000
$120,000 $189,000
$110,000 $189,000
$30,000 $189,000
Notta: UnK coeta are baaed on dfacuiakma with contractors (trencher, mandrel) or reported literature values (letting Bioslurry trt
Total
$537,000
$314,000
$384,000
$349,000
$269,000
nch)
„ Him lit Vi'Ki1 I.
Emplacement Techniques
-------
Case Studies Illustrating
Design/Emplacement Issues
1) Funnel and gate, sheetpiling
2) Continuous wall, trencher
3) Continuous wall, hydrofracturing
4) Continuous wall, jetting
Denver Fed Center
«• . *r ^
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
'r
liiiiilif, i,
i:1' I' i
'
Site Design Summary
In-situ System, FHA Facility, CO (Oct/96)
Impermeable Zone
-1,040 ft total length
Treatment Zone:
- 4 treatment zones
- 40 ft wide (each), 20 ft depth
- 5 to 10 ft saturated thickness
Influent Groundwater
- TCE and DCE isomers
- (< 700 ppb), VC (< 15 ppb)
Cost
Construction $675,000
Granular Iron $225,000
Total
$900,000
Site Design Summary
In-situ System, FHA Facility, Co (Oct/96)
Construction
• Lateral variation in concentration and velocity
used to minimize iron costs
• Sheet pile "funnel" installation difficult due to
lithology
• "Fast track" implementation schedule
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
Permeable Reactive Barrier Configuration
FHA Facility, Colorado
ttm
dtrecboo
k ^^
1
SATE 4
CATC A
South-North X-Section
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
I II11 III Wl III III IIIIIII III I III III III III II III III IIII IIIII1 III II III I III II I il|l"I':' 'I!" i'lli: Til!,: I' 11ll'; inillr < l"'l '! II
1 ."'I'S'.fl1 I I I HI II I IIIII
II;
j!"! ,!","! "[•', iif I
t'-f.i' !• '11' , ' I
Primary Groundwater Contaminants
at PRB
1,1,1-TCA
1,1 -DCE
TCE
cis-DCE
vinyl chloride
200
230
600 [ig/L
Boundary of DFC
Looking to the West
PRB Emplacement Techniques
li'i '" • I ' ;i ' i ' "' , , •• i ' ' Ti
-------
Denver Federal Center-Ground Water Contours
Denver Federal Center-TCE Contours
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
I! u
i.
Denver Federal Center-Sheet Pile Installation
Vibratory Hammer Driving Sheet Pile
H",
!!•!
il'1!
IF!!
II :!
ii! "I!
"" "
""'"'P ,'
Ik'
Emplacement Techniques
-------
Denver Federal Center-Gate Construction
Denver Federal Center-Placing Fe° in Cell One
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
ill
Template for Reaction cell
Denver Federal Center-Wall Construction
,• s '.si
PRB Emplacemei
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
Denver Federal Center-Wall Completion
Multi-Level Piezometers, Cell Z
*fa ^ , , " j.f* .' I^S^Tj-fJUjr*T, ~»."£3
yt?^. A^.^^-,, -*gaa
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
ii
Denver Federal Center-Gate Z
Denver Federal Center-Water Levels
WATER LEVELS UPGRAWENT FROM PRB
,
•.':' Li
mm -mm
YEAR
PRB Emplacement Techniques
,, ,,, "' "" ! , , ' , ' ' , ,
-------
Denver Federal Center-Water Levels
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
IF
f:
in
ll d
* II
II I
['
I!!1,1'11
I
'i
"I' \ ?•
•:9 i' ',
-------
PRB Emplacement Case Study
Continuous Wall
Case Study—New York Site
• Site located in Syracuse area
• 100s of ppb TCE, cDCE, TCA requiring treatment
• Water table at 3 ft bgl, clay zone at 15 to 17 ft bgl
PRB Emplacement Techniques—Case Study
-------
I'1. ,'"!"!
f
it"
Iff!
iljjjjii' f
Si™
if;
Rationale For PRB Implementation—
New York Site
• PRP no longer active at site
• Savings of at least $0.6M relative to pump and
treat
• Shallow plume
Contaminants amenable to treatment
Site Design Summary
Pilot-Scale In Situ System, New York (May 1995)
• Impermeable zone:
• 15 ft of scalable joint sheet pile on either side of
treatment zone
.15 ft depth
• Treatment zone:
. 10 ft length
• 31/2 ft flow-through thickness
• Influent groundwater:
• 10Os of ppb TCE, cisDCE, TCA
'' Kin,"" li ' .in, I
PRB Emplacement Techniques—Case Study
-------
PRB Emplacement Techniques—Case Study
-------
f I , fii
ill
PRB Emplacement Techniques—Case Study
j! , ' , :',
[ ' "
.: : ; ; :: :::: : i: :,: : : : : :,:
-------
Permeable Reactive Barrier Configuration
New York, Pilot-Scale
»D4 «D5 «D6
15ft
•P3
Pea Gravel III
Iron Filings Direction of GW flow
Monitoring Well
-Sheet-Pilingi' '
New York
PRB Emplacement Techniques—Case Study
-------
r h t1;;: ....... r ......... «" if™ " "«; i«; § i •• ..... s ..... ;! i ,• : *«i ; » s
v 'MB, a ...... • ...... 'tiii: ? vatt: -
1»
I';
r
Ill i!'!
Observed VOC Concentrations Along the
Center Transect — New York
Well Location
Upgradient Pea Gravel
Midpoint of Iron Zone
Downgradient Pea Gravel
Concentration Along Center Transect (mg/L)
TCE
Oct.
1995
160
<1.0
1.5
June
1997
189
2.0
<1.7
cDCE
Oct.
1995
450
*
2.0
7.5
June
1997
98
<7.8
15
VC
Oct.
1995
79
<1.0
1.2
June
1997
53
<0.7
<0.7
Changes in Inorganic Chemistry Along
Center Transect — New York
Chemical Parameter (unit)
Ca (mg/L)
Fe (mg/L)
Mg (mg/L)
HCO3 (mg/L)
Cl (mg/L)
S04 (mg/L)
pH
Eh (mV)
Monitoring Well Location
U2
90.6
<0.1
12.7
291
47.4
17.2
7.39
261
FE2
9.6
0.158
7.33
47.8
49.2
<5.0
9.46
-459
D2
15.4
<0.1
4.23
56.5
42.8
<5.0
8.56
-156
D5
33.6
0.159
5.95
Na
Na
-
7.06
-16.5
PRB Emplacement Techniques—Case Study
-------
PRB Emplacement Techniques—Case Study
-------
t'
iii ,1
Cross Section of Core Sample
Locations, NY
Core Results
• Coring 2 years after installation
• Carbonate precipitates predominate and occur
only within a few inches of the upgradient
interface
• Reactivity maintained after 2 years
• No evidence of microbial fouling
PRB Emplacement techniques—Case Study
*K' • t.l
If;,: / ' .'
-------
Site Design Summary
Full-Scale System, New York (1997)
• Two parallel continuous treatment walls (100% iron):
. 120 ft length Wall A
• 370 ft length Wall B
• 1 ft flow-through thickness
• 18 ft depth (Y 3')
• Cost (including design, materials, site
preparation/restoration) = $797,000
Conceptual Continuous Wall
Industrial Facility, New York
JFlow Direction
PRB Emplacement Techniques—Case Study
-------
Ill III
1 Ill 'ill
IN I ill
',' <" III! ,1
PRB Emplacement Techniques—Case Study
-------
Full-Scale Monitoring—New York
• Quarterly monitoring program
• Consistent flow through system observed
• Location of monitoring wells, VOCs in aquifer
downgradient of wall make treatment efficiency
difficult to determine
• Wells in iron show VOCs below detection limits
PRB Emplacement Techniques—Case Study
-------
r
,«, IB:i; '.
•I'J. ',»' ! ':•
:Sr' iilf1! ; -
IE; "it
J;1 ''ft;;;, 'i1*;1 •.
,l
• i ii i
',,iin"i ."In " ..'i Wli' '"I!
Illl i 'ill •!! i,'!1;""!! !l
, ., .
I , ;.\" i " II'!!:!!;
it; ii •'it:**'
ilM*
I I
P
-------
un
•e
Q.
Recent Advancements in PRB
Emplacement
•Alternatives to Excavation and
Trenching
Incentives for Emplacement
Advancement
PRB Depth
• Need to go deeper
• Emplacement across selected depth
intervals
Construction issues
• Obstructions (overhead and underground)
• Unstable soils
• Worker exposure
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
Incentives for Emplacement
Advancement
PRB Thickness
• Many applications require only a few
inches of iron
Cost
• Construction costs
• Disposal of spoils
• Reduce excessive iron usage
•m m
"ii: "J !
Recent Emplacement
Advancements
. Vertically Oriented Hydraulic
Fracturing
• Jetting
• Tremie Tube
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
f
Caldwell Trucking Superfund
Site
•Permeable Reactive Barrier
Emplacement Using Hydraulic
Fracturing
Project Highlights
• Permeable barrier installed as an
alternative to pump and treat
• Vertical hydraulic fracturing technology
used for emplacement
• Goal was primarily to protect a surface
water receptor
• PRPs agreed to install PRB at risk
• Stakeholders discussing ROD change
after 12 months of performance
monitoring
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
I!" •- 'i|;i fii!'.iiijfii;,;,, ..i',,,| ,t,,, f •
Site Background
• 11 acre waste disposal site in northern
New Jersey
• No potable use of impacted groundwater
• Significant discharge of groundwater to
surface water through downgradient
"seep"
• Only identified risk is direct contact with
impacted seep / surface water
Groundwater Flow from
Source to Seep Area
Passalc River
Reactivi
Wall In
Seep Area
Groundw;
Row
Direction
Caldwell
Trucking Company
Superfund Site
PPB Emplacement Techniques
-------
Subsurface Iron Reactive Barrier
Q round Surf*
• •etlv* W *H
Overview of Hydraulic
Fracturing Technology
• Iron suspended in guar-based gel
• Fractures initiated using proprietary down-hole
tool
• Iron-bearing gel injected at high pressure/low
velocity
• Fractures propagate along vertical orientation
• Adjacent fractures coalesce to form continuous
wall
• Gel breaks down leaving permeable iron barrier
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
Hiif:=L;i: l! ':-, \.
:i «II: J! M :i;
5! r
1
liii
Equipment and Instrumentation
Feed Rate
iron Filings
SotenoW Ftow
SmtchingVste
Record In Phasa
Induced Votega
Down Hole
Receivers
igh Pretision—c=p
^Transducer
sWfellFracFIukl
StiCrDss-Unked
__ JucMva
Free Fluid
•r
-------
.£}
1
O.
Overlapping Fractures
Injection Casing
Vertical Orientated
Fractures
Initiation Of Fracture
Ground Surface ,
Azimuth
'initiated Frac
PRO Emplacement Techniques
-------
III!!1!! !' i" : .1
Azimuth Control of
Fracture Orientation
Frac coalescence
beneath surface
Frac orientated along
required azimuth
Vertical Fracture Thickness
Thin continuous frac Thick continuous frac
PRB Emplacement Techniques
lit:;! : . , !•'
-I"! ili1!):! :f I ! •'• l( '
II
-------
Mixing and Pumping System
Mixing equipment
Hoppers loading
iron into equipment
Control/pumping unit
Iron Reactive Barrier at
Caldwel! Superfund Site
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
Geological Cross-Section
Along Reactive Wall
Why We Chose Fracturing for
Iron Emplacement
Depth to 65 feet
Desire to maintain integrity of clay layer
Small iron thickness required (7 inches)
Complex upper bedrock zone
Minimize site disruption
Ability to "tweak" after installation
HI 111 111 11 I.
PRB Emplacement Techniques
II"
-------
1
Q.
Design Overview
• Designed to achieve 12 half-lives for TCE
• Spans 40-foot depth interval from 25 to 65
feet below ground
• Lab studies indicate 4-inch fracture
thickness achievable in B-zone
• Two walls in series: 150-foot and 100-foot
lengths
• Hydrofrac wells at 15-foot spacing
Construction
• Hydraulic fracturing of unconsolidated
zone
• Permeation infilling of upper bedrock zone
• Construction QA
• electrical resistivity
• hydraulic pulse testing
• 10,000 square feet of barrier installed
• Construction completed March 1998
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
s it
Jill1 111", : "Hi," I'M1
ill Sis-; ;!
I* ', • • , v
lip;1;!. I,' 1
i1'.! . '!', I
i:"!1,1 i.' ' i
III!'.,; ) : •
liul , i .
Hi ,[:,T: M1
Bfi
IP1: >>! ' i
Active Resistivity
Surface Pins
Low Voltage
Excitation
Record In Phase
Induced Voltage
Down Hole
Receivers
HydroFrac Injection in B1 & B2
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
.a
in
-B
a.
Real Time Instrumentation
Display
Real Time Data
Acquisition &
Recording
Display of Resistivity
& Injection Time Histories
Display of Frac Geometry
Current Status of Project
• Seep concentrations reduced from 6,000 ppb
to 200 ppb to date
• Barrier extension and upgrade underway to
enhance performance
• Total project cost $ 2 M
m Project seen as success by all stakeholders
• Final site-wide remedy under discussion
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
lit • Kit
"II:,: IH!1' :' T I1'!" ft , '!
iiiijii Li ')!' ''"(:'. JisF
liri1 "iiliiiii-1 ''i • •> > i""
Ij1111!!'!lp
III'!:!'
I!:;1 ii" f
ISii'li''
;. f! . illi1: '!
Monitoring
• Performance monitoring: 12 month
shakedown and performance monitoring
period using up- and down-gradient
monitoring wells
• Basis for contractor's warranty
• Compliance monitoring: surface water in the
seep and creek (quarterly - VOCs only)
• Basis for regulatory acceptance
i" W'lHi ,; .iffi,
Pf.! •:':!:.
ihiki I i,,i :,', Mr"!,I
Seep TCE Concentrations
Caldwell Trucking Site
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
Key learnings
• Hydraulic fracturing is a viable and cost
effective emplacement technology for PRBs
• Importance of understanding stratigraphy
and groundwater flow
• 12 month performance and shakedown
period a good idea
• PRB technology is robust and flexible
An Active Plant Site
•Permeable Reactive Barrier
Emplacement Using Jetting
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
Area Of Concern
IB'l'iil ,
TCE Plume
Ulllll'.,1," !l'!"m J.
.'.,'' ,1 W:..:!1!!!,,!!!111!!?'111:!,'!!' n '» T', "il, ''BW'lllli"!!,1. ', ",: ', ii'sl, |
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
•e
a.
Existing P&T System
Project Highlights
• A PRB of 2 to 4 inches is required
. PRB will be 485 feet long by 15 feet
deep and be em placed by jetting
• -30/+70 mesh iron will be jetted
• Iron will be suspended in a guar gum
slurry
• Twelve utility & 2 road crossings
• Working near or underneath a water
tower
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
in i'
!';!'
["'iiii'
In-1!
I!1::.!"!
iii!'!1!
Pi
it !i!i'!
fii
||
fiiniil':
I, T'llllll
lu.JK
ii/d
t.iis
Site Characteristics
• Groundwater velocity of 0.09 feet / day
• k = 3.4x10'4 cm/sec to 1.2x10"3 cm/sec
• Depth to groundwater is roughly 5 feet
• Mudstone confining unit at roughly 15
feet
• No known use of TCE on the facility
• Limited contractor pipe cleaning is
suspected
'Hi!'1!'"1 11,,, "Mil
PRB Design
• One 2-inch wall for most of the plume
width
• Two 2-inch walls in series for the 100
ppb portion of the plume
• Wall depth is roughly 15 feet
• Numerous utilities and obstructions
within wall alignment
.mi • • iiir. '
''( ft
";':, i1:;! '
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
PRB Emplacement Challenge
What Utilities?
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
£,r
III '•'
I (.1
I '' - >i .
IS' • III;
1. nil'
I' i'il"
ill!,,,
What is Jetting?
• A high velocity stream of fluid erodes a
cavity in the soil matrix.
• A portion of the soil matrix is mixed
with the reactive media (iron filings).
• Jetting creates either columnar or
panel type structures in the sub-
surface.
Jetting Energy
PRB Emplacement Techniques
I , , . •• •' <•' at, "Id'
-------
Jetting Process
Columnar Emplacement
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
Panel Emplacement
Panel Emplacement
I!;1!,;,:!!!' ""' '!'< ',-• i i'lIJUi
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
Interconnecting Panels
Panel Type PRB
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
•in
I.:
Illi
Columnar Type PRB
- "' l "iV'
'.:! tirM; ' II
is! '!2h : I Miii 111
-tfl,,' i :! '"::"> i I
Monitoring System
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
Why Jetting Was Selected
• PRB thickness of 2 to 4 inches
• Over 12 utility & 2 road crossings
• Working near or underneath a water
tower
• Reduction of emplacement costs
• Reduction in worker exposure
Current Status of Project
• Project is slated to be in the field in August
1999
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
i: ft'!
lilt
!! ii'f''
iiiiiiti'ii
I if
flit'
ill'i!:
Illili!/, ilSi/ilifiJi'i'
¥il,!"i! BIHl'llil
&
:: i
i,;
ii'l ||t"i'''ii!'! i
ll lllliN i
|i j!ii!'jf' ;
iilif Kill i^ i i-
'lullll'i i
I'
II:
If" ill!
n; i'i
I-S!'
iiii'ii'i'i'
||i -i
II1 'I'lillll!' .
ill'' ' i '
Key Learnings To Date
• Jetting appears to be a viable emplacement
technology for PRBs
• Thin and thick PRBs can be emplaced
• Depths in excess of 50 feet are possible
• Understanding geo-technical aspects of
stratigraphy are important
• Worker exposure and spoils can be
minimized
jllrl!' ' JjHllij
,, „ ,, ,
'l| ..... "" 'I "'Jilll1!
DOE'S
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
• Permeable Reactive Barrier
Emplacement Using Tremie Tube
"', K 1 |:ll
S1' fin
,:,NI i ., iu
- [•'. f .i ii
I'J'i 'i:«
PRB Emplacement Techniques
ii
I'1
-------
Project Highlights
Thin (2-inch) reactive zones were
emplaced as part of Lasagna technology
demonstration project at a DOE site.
Emplaced 100 linear feet to a depth of 45
feet
Spoils generation were minimal
Tremie tube emplacement proved to be
cost-effective
PGDP's
TCE Plume
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
S'liJIli' I*; :y, .; I!
ii iiiiiii ' ',,H '' i.i ••: lit :
Site
Characteristics
• TCE plume in tight clayey soil
• Very low hydraulic conductivity
• Depth to groundwater is roughly 10
feet
• Thickness of clayey zone is roughly 50
feet
: I
•: • II ll
"i .! * •!•.'.• ' ',, tlfii J"
.," •'•<•'••'':"'' ;'!i*ii!,' t,
What is Lasagna
Lasagna Technology?
PRB
• . ' ,r,i(li !,»l'-;1,'
Emplacement Techniques
-------
What is
Tremie Tube Technology?
Tremie tube technology is the use of a
tubural structure through which
material is transferred into the ground
without the material mixing with the
soil.
PGDP's
Tremie Tube
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
'iiiiiiit.'.Hi '• • ." • iu; ',',"!
Overall View
ili i..,; • .' - -.-'• I i'.t- :;..." 'i,:.'.,.„.:, ;•!,!. i-., '.* ' -
i li'l :'
Bottom Edge
if ,!'.:
fin. ' .....
lillll'i :
ivsn
MH1
PRB Emplacement techniques
-------
Driveshoe
Emplacement System
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
'lllllll' 111 III1 "ll I
i.!!i, i,i,5,,: Itil i V.
iilli,;'^ I1 'i'..'
• i Sir i •:
If!;: .!. if' .
IB i '<
Tremie Tube at Depth
111 II III III
Placement of Materials
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
Emplacement Sequence
4
1
Forming a continuous wall using the tremie tube method with
sequential emplacements
Case Study Summary
• Why was tremie tube technology
selected?
• Emplace thin (2") treatment zones
• Reduce emplacement costs
• Reduce spoils generation & disposal
costs
• Reduce worker exposure
PRB Emplacement Techniques
-------
SI" 1'
Key learnings
• Tremie tube technology is a viable
emplacement alternative for PRBs
• Worker exposure can be significantly
reduced
• Spoils generation can be minimized
Conclusions
PRBs can be placed cost-effectively to
depths > 100 ft.
PRBs can be emplaced across selected
depth intervals
Thin panels can be emplaced without excess
iron usage
Recent advancements allow PRB
emplacement where trenching and
excavation would be problematic
PRB Emplacement Techniques
ill ill ill in
1" "" '
' "" ' "
l"l mil ",!'...' '"I
1,1 tittb;iitifc,,;i:;iiii
III""1 l.'IIIIIPWW 'i llrl'illillllli 1
, ,uiij^^ i ;;.) la iH^ iiiiiii.Jiiifc '&*!<•» I
-------
and Implementation
-------
-------
EPA/ITRC/RTDF
Permeable Reactive Barrier Short Course
PRB Permitting and Implementation
KTDF
x>EPA
Path to PRB Design and
Emplacement
Laboratory Testing
L
Site Characterization Data
1 '
Conceptual Model
Preliminary Design
I
Pilot Test
| Final Design j
I Full-Scale Emplacement [
Considerations for PRB Implementation and Construction
-------
ili;
11
If:
111!:-
I'M
r
Hi"!!
Considerations
• Permitting
• Legal
• Planning
• scheduling, access, health and safety
• spoils management
• Construction QA/QC
• Verification
• Post-construction
Regulatory Oversight Framework
• permit equivalency
• RCRA program
• State regulatory programs
Hi i "l" , , J"!'
l-li'Ii
iti. v
Considerations for PRB Implementation and Construction
-------
Permitting Issues
• National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)
• Underground Injection Control (UIC)
• Air Quality
• Local permits
• Site-specific permits (i.e., wetlands)
• PRB technology-specific permit does not exist
NPDES
Triggered for the disposal of excess water
generated during installation
• installation method-dependent
• may require permit for discharge to groundwater,
surface water, or POTW
Considerations for PRB Implementation and Construction
-------
l?,r
»iius
'Pi (l
,i' •• ,m
* ilillliii <
Ml
i;;i>
In:
[,'!'
y.i
'i'iikii'
;!«! II,
If:
UIC
Triggered by reactive media placement
• not typically required for the placement of solid media
by excavation, caisson, mandrel, or continuous
trencher, etc.
• may be required for the placement in liquid form by
jet-grouting, hydrofracturing, etc. State-specific
requirement.
Air Quality
Triggered by emissions generated during
installation of PRB
• should be evaluated on a site-specific basis
• not typically required where PRB is placed
downgradient of the source area
Considerations for PRB Implementation and Construction
I-,-'
1
>, ' t
-------
Other Regulatory Issues
Waste disposal - classification
Public involvement / comment periods
Deed restrictions - notifications
Health and safety issues
Legal Considerations
• Landowner issues
• Long-term maintenance agreements
• Access agreements
• during installation
• for ongoing monitoring
• Disruption
Considerations for PRB Implementation and Construction
-------
V t
ill::;
i :i
Constructability
Site photograph—San Francisco Bay Area
• dense commercial area
Constructability
Site photograph—Elizabeth City, NC
• moderate commercial area
Considerations for PRB Implementation and Construction
-------
Constructability
Site photograph—Durango, Colorado
• remote area
Courtesy DDE-Grand Junction, CO
Constructability
Building, legal, nearby remediation, utilities
Adjacent site
remediation
Construction
under building
Deed
restriction
Future
construction
Permeable
subsurface treatment North
wall composed of Cement-soll-bentonite -"
granular iron ' slurry wall
1 i
40 ft.
H-
| ^ 1 =Si- Pea gravel v
r .
i i
Cement-bentonite j
slurry wall j
"^- Building 1
•
<^2iS23!
Groundwater flow
Historical range in
groundwaterflow direction
7
EXPLANATION
• Monitoring well
© Piezometer
Considerations for PRB Implementation and Construction
-------
if':,;;
I: I
Constructability
Heavy equipment
.I'll Ill, I , !.. .i|",, II 'I,
1
r
Constructability
Access
Considerations for PRB Implementation and Construction
-------
Constructability
Equipment mobility
Constructability
Building Constraints
Considerations for PRB Implementation and Construction
-------
i hi ii ' .M1 ' in: "In!1
S1MHI . :£
I! 111! " • 1! >:l"
Hi!'it!1!!!!! • "if i- ";"f!!l
lit
Constructability—
Geotechnical and Structural
• Cone penetrometer soundings
• Soil property testing
• Geotechnical assessment
• Pre-/post-construction building survey
• Dewatering design
• Designing for the unknown
I!!1" all
Geotechnical Design
• Geotechnical
plan - example
SHEETS DBVEN MJO
C8 Ke» W«J.S_L£FT
IKNCH PLATES USED
AS TEWOMRY OMOEFt
WMXS OURWC BACXFLL-
Considerations for PRB Implementation and Construction
-------
-------
-------
ro
t3
CD
EPA/ITRC/RTDF
Permeable Reactive Barrier Short Course
A. Treatment of Metals by Fe° PRB Systems
B. Non-Metallic Reactive Materials for
Promoting PRB-Based Treatment
RTDF
4>EPA
Path to PRB Design and
Emplacement
Site Characterization Data
Laboratory Testing
1
[ Conceptual Model |
Preliminary Design |*
JL
Pilot Test
Final Design
I
Full-Scale Emplacement
Reactive Materials II: Non-Metallic Reactive
Materials for Promoting PRB-Based Treatment
-------
•!:"' .if'".!
4! Jf:1
"it
IN:"!'
If;
iti
<
Kl
I-!,;
!! !i;J i.
U"!
I!
i
Treatment Mechanisms
• pH control (acid neutralization)
• Chemical precipitation (oxidation and reduction)
• Coprecipitation on mineral surfaces
• Sorption reactions
• Biological enhancement
• Sequential treatment
Treatment Materials;
Treatable Contaminants
Treatment Material
Target Contaminants Technology Status
Zero-valent iron
Reduced metals
Metal couples
Limestone
Sorptive agents
Reducing agents
Biologic electron
acceptors
Halocarbons,
reducible metals
Halocarbons,
reducible metals
Halocarbons
Metals, acid water
Metals, organics
Reducible metals,
organics
Petroleum
hydrocarbons
In practice
Field demonstration
Field demonstration
In practice
Field demonstration,
in practice
Field demonstration,
in practice
In practice,
field demonstration
I B1' i;1 „
r *«':!!"
'• ;s • .• fi
Beactive Materials I); Non-Metallic Reactive
Materials for Promoting PRB-Based Treatment
-------
Non-Metallic Treatment Materials
Limestone
Precipitation agents
• gypsum, hydroxyapatite, organic compost
Sorptive agents
• granular activated carbon, bone char, phosphatics,
zeolites, coal, peat, synthetic resins
Non-Metallic Treatment Materials
Reducing agents
• organic compost, dithionite, hydrogen sulfide,
bacteria, acetate, corn syrup, molasses, organic
compost
Biological enhancements
• oxygen source, hydrogen source, carbon source
nitrate
Reactive Materials II: Non-Metallic Reactive
Materials for Promoting PRB-Based Treatment
-------
lit
I! ,
!k
j|
ri
in.
I!-;,,
I "
Li'
Chemical Precipitation
The creation of an insoluble phase from
combining the target contaminant with a slightly
soluble anionic material
Example materials:
• limestone, hydrated lime, hydroxyapatite
hydroxyapatite (CaPO4)= > Pb-phosphate(s)
Chemical Precipitation—pH Control
Metal solubility as a function of pH
Soluble Metals Cone.
mgfL
100
10
0.1 -
-\
Cd
123456789 10 11 12
pH
TP ":•;.' II,,;
Reactive Materials II: Non-Metallic Reactive
Materials for Promoting PRB-Based Treatment
-------
O)
o
CD
pH Control
• The use of a PRB to either raise or lower the
aqueous system pH
• Indirect pH control through biological activity
• Example materials include:
• lime, crushed limestone, organic compost
• pyrite, carbonic acid
pH Control—Example
PRB composed of crushed limestone to treat
acid water conditions
FeS2 + 3.5 O2 + H2O = 2 SO/- + Fe2*
Fe2+ + 0.25 O2 + 2.5 H2O = Fe (OH)3 + 2H+
Pyrite oxidation: pHJ
Hydroxide release: pH f
Reactive Materials II: Non-Metallic Reactive
Materials for Promoting PRB-Based Treatment
-------
I'. ihilliil' !.'!' 'i'• i'.,,;: IJIiii, |i '', • r, "liillll"1 .'! '' illllli '" - ' "Jllii!i 'I'1 illil n''' V1 I ">'•'• In! l'','i i ' j.' 11, Hll ',!'
1C: II l,i:iil, ,"
!<{!!: |[}l „ I ,;,
:itl: fitiiiii i'' i"
lip f
'!i iiiisiiKi1:11! i
•frtiii'ii.
•Mit!'<
!: llj
ii IIP"
I till1'
n
V j,r"
'": ill"
!'!' ft!; : • : t"
if kf ' I ':••':'' 1
s iaiii';
III
iii:
EI
II
I'
iiii , i
IHiC
Fl
It,:1,
iii:!;!
I Ji:
I":
Oxidation-Reduction
Geochemical modification of the aqueous
environment through manipulation of
oxidation-reduction potential
i Example materials:
. sodium dithionite (Na2S2O4) to reduce Fe(lll) to Fe(ll)
• organic compost to reduce sulfate, generate HS, and
indirectly form metal precipitates
Oxidation-Reduction Example
Geochemically manipulated PRB from injection
Of SOdium dithionite (Fruchter, etal.)
Reductant emplaced through
injection/extraction flushing
Fe3+ sediments
Plume
Fe3+ -> Fe2+
'ifV
Groundwater flow direction
±
Structural Fe Reduced zone
and area of treatment
Reactive Materials II: Non-Metallic Reactive
(Vlaterials for Prompting PRB-Based Treatment
JIIIIT::!! I'll'., , .it!'
.'iii:lB
'.'iii/'ii .iriiai'v,(..•' : i11 I' :,.',:.';. 11
-------
en
'S
a
Coprecipitation on Mineral Surfaces
• Definition: removing a soluble metal from solution
through precipitation of another (carrier) component
• Allows metals to be removed beyond the limits
predicted by equilibrium values
• Used often in wastewater treatment
• Example: removal of zinc from a flow system
FeCI3 + 3H2O ==> Fe(OH)3 + 3H+ + Ch
Zn is trapped within and adsorbed to Fe(OH)3
Sorption Reactions
A general term to define processes of how
chemicals sorb (attach) to and desorb (detach)
from solid particles
Divided into three types of reactions:
• hydrophobic
• hydrophilic
• ion exchange
Reactive Materials II: Non-Metallic Reactive
Materials for Promoting PRB-Based Treatment
-------
: ft
::.:,; us* ' »ii
Sorption Reactions
• Chemicals sorb by:
• diffusing into soil matrix
• adhering onto organic matter on soil
. attracted by electrical charge
• Chemicals desorb by:
• diffusion along a concentration gradient
• displacement by a molecule with higher affinity for
the site
Sorption of Organics
• Good for compounds with
• low water solubility
• hydrophobic character
• not easily biodegraded
• Example materials include:
• GAC, peat, coal, organic-rich shale, zeolite
Reactive Materials II: Non-Metallic Reactive
Materials for Promoting PRB-Based Treatment
-------
Sorption of Inorganics
Good for compounds such as metals
• affinity on carbon: Pb>Cu>Ni>Zn=Mn=Cd=Co
Well-suited to hydrophilic and ion exchange
sorption reactions
Examples include:
• organic carbon, zeolites, clays, oxyhydroxides
Sorption Materials - Zeolites
Example:
Clinoptilolite
(Na, K, Ca)2.3AI3(AI, Si)2Si13O36-12H2O
Reactive Materials II: Non-Metallic Reactive
Materials for Promoting PRB-Based Treatment
-------
ill!;.
"ill
til
il j
ii
•
i!
•I!
E:
Enhanced Sorptlon
• Surface modified zeolite PRB to sorb metals
(e.g., Cr, U, Sr, As)
CJtromate
Zeolite Surface
Source: New Mexico Tech and Oregon Graduate Institute
Biological Enhancement
Addition of nutrients to stimulate microbial
activity necessary for chemical degradation
Example materials
• oxygen-releasing compound or oxygen source to
stimulate aerobic microbes (treat BTEX)
• nitrate to stimulate anaerobic microbes
• sugar (carbon source) to stimulate anaerobic microbes
(treat chlorinated VOCs)
• sulfate-reducing bacteria
Reactive Material? l|; Non-Metallic Reactive
Materials for Promoting PRB-Based Treatment
-------
PRB as Biologically Enhanced Area
Oxygen release
ORC-wells
Sucrose addition
cVOC plume
Aerobic zone
_ ——•
increased biological
activity
GW flow
direction
(map view)
Redox
Area of
increased
degradation
Anaerobic zone
low degradation rate
biologically
enhanced
dehalogenation
zone
Low redox
*
Low O2
Sucrose
injection
well
ORC and HRC Barriers
Oxygen Release
Compound
• MgO2 + H20 -> 1/2 O2 + Mg (OH)2
Hydrogen Release
Compound
• Polyactate ester that releases
lactic acid when hydrated
• Lactic acid is metabolized
anaerobically releasing H
Diagram Courtesy Regenesis Bioremediation Products
Reactive Materials II: Non-Metallic Reactive
Materials for Promoting PRB-Based Treatment
-------
I ill IU: i,, •> „ iii;
1,1
Hi-!'1
iri"! i
Considerations for Using Reactants
• Understanding ambient hydro/geochemistry
• hydrochemical type (major inorganics)
• redox
• organic content
• Understanding physical flow system
• dispersion, heterogeneity, groundwater velocity
• Longevity of treatment
• active life, need to re-apply
Sequential Treatment Design
• Use of two or more processes in series to treat a
mixed plume - advantages:
• increase effectiveness of principal treatment
• polish treatment
• increase the longevity of the remedy
Treatment A Treatment B
Reactive Materials II: Non-Metallic Reactive
'" Matenaislor Promoting' PRB:Bas'ecl'Treatment
-------
Sequential Design System (continued)
Example: Sorption - Dehalogenation
CaCO3 saturated
groundwater
Groundwater flow direction
Result:
Reduces tendency
for plugging in B
Treatment A - Zeolite for sorplion of metals and
carbonate - high porosity
Treatment B - Zero-valent metal to dehalogenate cVOC
Sequential Treatment—Issues
• Treatment process considerations
• oxidizing vs. reducing conditions
• pH affects
• interfering mineralization/blinding
• electron consumption
• Implementation
• Hydraulics
Reactive Materials II: Non-Metallic Reactive
Materials for Promoting PRB-Based Treatment
-------
in * 1 f in
- " " !"" ; '
Ift, - f.",,]|
' ' illllf I'!'» i1'"! ' ,„•'!: f
IK! <
Case Studies
lira
1; ]]
"1 '
"HI
iililil:
, • „,. •• •.•.;:.*;. i,, ••, :.;, [;•;•,;• ;, .v-,,;.,;::, ,. , .; ',:, ,,„;:,;
Reactive Materials II: Non-Metallic Reactive
? ! • ':i ,i ,,i. illtMf W! 1:1 niilllLll Sill liih ",,i'j.i|l If'Kiffl1"! jj lull I ^lii£',/2 ''liiJiiFHLi sir ,, • "J! i, •,,,,• |. ., IIHIIUI
Materials for Promoting
• I '"!,-
ised Treatment
i. :'iim '«.!'!• -it if!
-------
-------
-------
EPA/ITRC/RTDF
Permeable Reactive Barrier Short Course
Economic Considerations for
PRB Deployment
H-
BTDF
vvEPA
Path to PRB Design and
Emplacement
L
Site Characterization Data
i
]
| Laboratory Testing | j Conceptual Model j
~*\ Preliminary Design |*"
[
Pilot Test
]
I Final Design |
Full-Scale Emplacement
Economic Considerations for PRB Deployment
-------
i. b-! •:•••
Cost Considerations
• Site characterization
• Design (includes laboratory and field pilot, if
necessary)
• Construction
• reactive material
• hydraulic barriers (if necessary)
• disposal of excess soil and materials
• Monitoring
• Operation and maintenance
• Legal issues
Factors Affecting Treatment Cost
• Influent VOC concentrations and MCLs
• Ground water velocity
• VOC degradation rates
• Depth, width, saturated thickness of plume
• Reactive material
• Installation method
• Licensing fees, if applicable
iiPi1"'" r;
Economic Considerations for PRB Deployment
ill, << ; ,!: I, ,:• '• i, tl!,,i, J ; ','i:,,i,l Hi! ,11'!,,,'
Ill id!1 i1 i,'1 Ul 'I
-------
Cost Analysis Approach
Present value
Uniform template site methodology
Present Cost Definition
PV=
i=o
Where:
i = 0 Capital investment year
I = 1->n Operation and maintenance years
r = Discount rate
Y = Dollars expended in year 'i'
n = Number of years
Economic Considerations for PRB Deployment
-------
"I i HI
, M! KM.
General Economic Assumptions
• Inflation is constant at 4%
• Cost of capital is constant at 12% for industry
• Analysis is done on a before-tax basis
• Remedial time frame is 30 years
• Monitoring cost per well per year is $2500
• Monitoring wells cost $2400 each
Template Methodology
• Establishes a consistent method to evaluate
and compare groundwater cleanup
technologies utilizing financially sound
metrics
• Defines a generic template site
• Allows costs of alternatives to be compared
on a uniform basis
Economic Considerations for PRB Deployment
-------
Template: Definition
• The template serves as a fixed model of the
remediation site conditions for establishing:
• physical site parameters
• contaminant and concentration
• remedial goals
Template Site
Economic Considerations for PRB Deployment
-------
Plume Description
Other Contaminant Assumptions
Remedial goals at compliance point
• TCE = 5 ppb
• cDCE = 70 ppb
. VC * 2 ppb
Economic Considerations for PRB Deployment
liiV! 1
I'lT
idiiiii iij j w^ 11 iii i in iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii mill iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i ii»^^ ill 11 in ill 11 i iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 11 iiii i in ill
• •ill Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll I III Illllllllllllllllllll I I. I III III Illll III I
-------
Cost Analysis of PRBs
Cost analysis of barriers
• continuous
• funnel and gate
Comparison to pump and treat
Comparison to intrinsic bioremediation
Continuous Reactive Wall
Economic Considerations for PRB Deployment
-------
,,'f, I,}' ' !
i'!|il! ilniiiili., | |, '
Continuous PRB Assumptions
• PRB emplacement cost: $20/ft2
• Granular cast iron: $400/ton and 165 Ibs/ft3
« Barrier thickness: 1 foot (48 hr residence time)
• Licensing fee: 15% of capital
• Up front engineering cost: $200,000
• Number of monitoring wells: 10
"I! II
'',"!& i ::j:!i I" lix
Continuous PRB Summary
Replacement Cycle
Cost Item
Engineering
Emplacement
Iron
Wells
Licensing Fee
O&M
Monitoring
Total
5 Year
$299K
$1,434K
$2,367K
$24K
$194K
$0
$279K
$4,597K
10 Year
$240K
$870K
$1,435K
S24K
$194K
$0
$279K
$3,042K
15 Year
$222K
$690K
$1,1 38K
$24K
$194K
$0
$279K
$2,547K
30 Year
S200K
$480K
$792K
$24K
S194K
$0
$279K
$1,969K
Economic Considerations for PRB Deployment
-------
Continuous Reactive Wall
lative Net Present Cost
I
o
$7,000,000 -
$6,000,000 •
$5 000 000 ' -
$3,000,000 -
$1 000 000 -
Sn -
(5 year life cycl^)
>„ „ „ ,.-
X — k — M — *^V
/ " (10 year life cycle)
/ " " " ;.«..». «««*«.^ JlSyearlfte.cxcle).^,
(30 year life cycle)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Time (Years)
Continuous Wall
$870,000
(Emplacement)
(10-Year Replacement Cycle - $3,042K)
$1,435,000 (Iron)
$241,000
(Engineering)
$279,000
(Monitoring)
$0
(O&M)
$194,000
(Licensing Fee)
$24,000
(Wells)
Economic Considerations for PRB Deployment
-------
Ill
Funnel and Gate Assumptions
Funnel emplacement cost: $25/ft2
Gate emplacement cost: $100/ft2
Granular cast iron: $400/ton and 165 Ibs/ft3
Gate: 20 feet by 20 feet (48 hr residence time)
Licensing fee: 15% of capital
Up front engineering cost: $200,000
Number of monitoring wells: 10
Funnel and Gate Summary
Replacement Cycle
Cost Item
Engineering
Gate
Funnel
Iron
Wells
Licensing Fee
O&M
Monitoring
Total
5 Year
$299K
$1,434K
$570K
$2,367K
$24K
$279K
$0
$279K
$5,523K
10 Year
$240K
$870K
$570K
$1,435K
$24K
$279K
$0
$279K
$3,698K
15 Year
$222K
$690K
$570K
$1,138K
$24K
$279K
$0
$279K
$3,203K
30 Year
$200K
$480K
$570K
$792K
$24K
$279K
$0
$279K
S2.625K
Economic Considerations for PRB Deployment
•li ....... In:! ...... «,ii!l!l
-------
Funnel and Gate PV Summary
$10,000,000 -
°3 $8 000 000
o
•*-" $7 000 000 -i
CD
CD $6 000 000
Q-
CD $5 000 000
$2 000 000
$1 000 000
$0 -
(5 year life cycle) \
/ • • • s ' ' ' ""
/ (jJOhysajr lifacycJo} n-q
?~^ P~° — °— °— °— °— °— °— ° — "yf^ypsy |jf^ rjyQ(f^) _^-
T^
(30 year life cycle)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Time (Years)
Funnel and Gate
(10 Year Replacement Cycle - $3,698K)
$570,000 (Funnel) ,_ f $1,435,000 (Iron)
$241,000
(Engineering)
$24,000
(Wells)
$279,000
(Monitoring)
$0
(O&M)
$279,900
(Licensing Fee)
Economic Considerations for PRB Deployment
-------
Fi !n ....... mi ...... ••> ..... in i < ..... IIIIF:;!!! "Hi' »i"*; iii ..... jiiitiini ..... > i :' ' < ~F '
I::IR: ..... iiiniiciiH^^^^^^^^ ...... iiiiiri ...... >«s ,=11 ..... •<'• iir -, nin inn
IIR; ,
I1!. ,
I
I!!!;
!ii ii <
Continuous vs. F&G Summary
Cumulative Net Present Cost
36,000,000 •
S3,000,000 -
$1,000,000 -
so -
<
Funnel and Gate (10 year life cycle)
-^
s
— / ^ " "••"•"•" 1. .. .. *•
* -a. )l M )< -M — H- M " " •*?
/»
-*-*-*-»-*-"-«-*-* Continuous Wall (10 year life cycle)
•) 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Time (Years)
"lii'Cl II'IIIH
Pump and Treat
Economic Considerations for PRB Deployment
•"I
-------
•s
-------
Pump and Treat
$9,000,000 -
'g S8.000.000 •
-------
Intrinsic Bioremediation
Intrinsic Bioremediation Summary
Engineering
Wells
O&M
Monitoring
Total
YeaM
S250K
S48M
$OK
$50K
S348K
NPV
S250K
S48K
$OK
$557K
S855K
Economic Considerations for PRB Deployment
-------
111 !"|:
Intrinsic Bioremediation
Cumulative Net Present Cost
SIO.000,000 •
$9,000,000 •
S8.000.000 •
S7.000.000 •
56,000,000 •
$5,000,000
S4.000.000 •
S3.000.000 •
S2.000.000
S1, 000.000 -
so -
,j n n n n — u — u — o— o °
< -
3 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Time (Years)
Eli
Overall NPV Summary
Cumulative Net Present Cost
$7,000,000 •
$4,000,000 •
$3,000,000 •
^r~^~
Pump and Treat j*^*^
X"
X
/
yTFnnnel and Gate (10Year Cycle) ^J
/ , ..- ^
.. ' M M )( )I •» 11 11 » M "^
_-y /—
^LH i. M " •• " " "Continuous Wall (10 Year Cycle)
-•-•—•—•"''""' Intrinsic Bioremediation
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Time (Years)
Economic Considerations for PRB Deployment
-------
Conclusions
Comparing remedial alternatives using the
template site methodology is effective
Permeable reactive barriers are
cost-effective compared to pump and treat
Synergy with natural biodegradation processes
should be considered during the design stage
Conclusions
(0
LH Full Scale
SH Pilot Scale
1995 1996 1997 1998 YTD
Economic Considerations for PRB Deployment
-------
illl ' II' ,!<„
-------
-------
-------
FIELD APPLICATIONS OF
PERMEABLE BARRIER TECHNOLOGY
Appleton, EX. 1996. "A Nickel-Iron Wall Against Contaminated Groundwater." Environmental
Science & Technology, 30:12, 536A-539A.
Bain, J.G.; D.W. Blowes; S.G. Benner. 1998. "Treatment of Acidic, Mine-Associated Discharge
to a Lake Using a Permeable Reactive Barrier." 1998 American Geophysical Union Spring
Meeting, 26-29 May, Boston, MA.
Baker, M.J.; D.W. Blowes; CJ. Ptacek. 1997. "Phosphorous Adsorption and Precipitation in a
Permeable Reactive Wall: Applications for Wastewater Disposal Systems." 1997 International
Containment Technology Conference and Exhibition, 9-12 February, St. Petersburg, FL. 697-
703. CONF-970208-Proc. DE98001967.
Barton, W.D.; P.M. Craig; W.C. Stone. 1997. "Two Passive Groundwater Treatment Installations
at DOE Facilities." 1997 International Containment Technology Conference and Exhibition, 9-
12 February, St. Petersburg, FL. 827-834. CONF-970208-Proc. DE98001967.
Benner, S.G.; D.W. Blowes; C.J. Ptacek. 1997. "A Full-Scale Porous Reactive Wall for
Prevention of Acid Mine Drainage." Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation. 11-A (Fall):
99-107.
Benner, S.G.; D.W. Blowes; C J. Ptacek. 1997. "Porous Reactive Wall for Prevention of Acid
Mine Drainage: Results of a Full-Scale Field Demonstration." 1997 International Containment
Technology Conference and Exhibition, 9-12 February, St. Petersburg, FL. 835-843. CONF-
970208-Proc. DE98001967.
Benner, S.G.; D.W. Blowes; C.J. Ptacek. 1997. "Sulfate Reduction in a Permeable Reactive Wall
for Prevention of Acid Mine Drainage." The 213th National Meeting of the American Chemical
Society, San Francisco, CA. Preprint Extended Abstracts, Division of Environmental Chemistry.
37:1, 140-141.
Bennett, T.A.; D.W. Blowes; R.W. Puls; R.W. Gillham; CJ. Hanton-Fong; C.J. Ptacek; S.F.
O'Hannesin; J.L. Vogan. 1997. "Design and Installation of an In Situ Porous Reactive Wall for
Treatment of Cr(VI) and Trichloroethylene in Groundwater." The 213th National Meeting of the
American Chemical Society, San Francisco, CA. Preprint Extended Abstracts, Division of
Environmental Chemistry. 37:1, 243-245.
Bennett, T.A.; D.W. Blowes; R.W. Puls; R.W. Gillham; C.J. Hanton-Fong; C.J. Ptacek; S.F.
O'Hannesin; J.L. Vogan. 1998. "An In-Situ Permeable Iron-Filings Wall to Remediate Cr(VI)
and TCE Contaminated Groundwater." Subsurface Barrier Technologies Conference:
Engineering Advancements and Application Considerations for Innovative Barrier Technologies,
26-27 January 1998, Tucson, AZ. International Business Communications, Southborough, MA.
-------
i ii • :,:; ;.,: ; .•• :•'. • '-. • ' I i
I I Ml , ' : '« , - :;. . Ji I" II
II II ,,:"'• ,/ /: ,r „ :' IIP i n I
II II 111 • - ,'. : .',, ' : , .;< ' , i II ii II
Berts, K.S. 1998. "Novel Barrier Remediates Chlorinated Solvents." Environmental Science &
Technology, 1 November 1998,495A.
Blowes, D.W.; C.J. Ptacek; K.R. Waybrant; J.D. Bain; W.D. Robertson. 1994. "In Situ
Treatment of Mine Drainage Water Using Porous Reactive Walls." The "New Economy": Green
Needs and Opportunities. Environment and Energy Conference of Ontario, November 15 & 16,
1994, Toronto^ Ontario.
Blowes, D.W.; CJ: Ptacek; J.A. Cherry; R.W. Gillham; W.D. Robertson. 1995. "Passive
Remediation of Groundwater Using In Situ Treatment Curtains." Geoenvironment 2000:
Characterization, Containment, Remediation, and Performance in Environmental Geotechnics.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. Geotechnical special publication 46 (v.2),
1588-1607.
Blowes, D.V/"iC.j"Ptacek; CJ. Hanton-Fong; J.L. Jambon 1995. "In Situ Remediation of
ChromiumContaminated Groundwater Using Zero-Valent Iron." The 209th American Chemical
Socjety National Meeting, Division of Environmental Chemistry, 2-7 April 1995, Anaheim, CA.
Preprint Extended Abstracts. 35:1,780-783.
Blowes, D.W.;C.I Ptacek; K.R. Waybrant; J.G. Bain. 1995. "In Situ Treatment of Mine
Drainage Water Using Porous Reactive Walls." Proceedings, Biominet Annual General Meeting
orf Biotechnology and the Mining Environment, 26 January 1995, Ottawa, Ontario. 119-128.
Blowes, D.W.; CJ, Ptacek; J.G. Bain; K.R. Waybrant; W.D. Robertson. 1995. "Treatment of
Mine Drainage Water Using In Situ Permeable Reactive Walls." Proceedings, Sudbury '95
Symposium on Mining and the Environment, 28 May-1 June 1995, Sudbury, Ontario. V.3,
979-987- , , ,
Blgwes, D:W;;R.W. Puls; T. A. Bennett; R.W. Gillam; C.J. Hanton-Fpng; CJ. Ptacek. 1997.
"In-Situ Porous Reactive Wall for Treatment of Cr(VI) atiS f ricKloroethylerie in Groundwater."
1997 International Containment Technology Conference, 9-12 February 1997, St. Petersburg,
FL, 851-857. CONF-970208-Proc. DE^OOl^.
i i (ii i in i i ,";,•• , ,! , , i " i!1,1 !"i' !, 'I1" ''•''" ': ;"( '''
Bjswes, P,\VJR.W. Puls; C. Ptacek; T.A. Bennett; K.U. Mayer; A^R. Pratt. 1998. 'Termeable
Reactive Blamer'for Cif(Vl)"' Treatment: from Concept to Implementation." 1998 American
Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, 6-10 December, San Francisco, CA.
Borden, R.C.; R.TI Goin; C.M Kao; C.G. Rosal. 1996. Enhanced Bioremediation "ofBTEX
Using Immobilized Nutrients: Field Demonstration and Monitoring. 68 pp. EPA/600/R-96/145.
PB97-186290. .. . , . \
Bgrden, Robert d; Russell Todd Goin; Chih-Ming Kao. 1997. "Control of BTEX Migration
Using a Biologically Enhanced Permeable Barrier." Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation.
17:1,70-80.
-------
Bowles, M.; L.R. Bentley; J. Barker; D. Thomas; D. Granger; H. Jacobs; S. Rimbey; B. Hoyne.
1997. "The East Garrington Trench and Gate System: It Works," The 6th Annual Conference on
Groundwater and Soil Remediation, Montreal, 18-21 June 1997.
Bowman, Robert. 1999. "Pilot-Scale Testing of a Surfactant-Modified Zeolite PRB." Ground
Water Currents. EPA/542/N-99/002. (Available through http://clu-in.org.)
Byerly, B.T.; W.D. Robertson. 1996. "Remediation of Landfill Leachate Using Infiltration and
Reactive Barrier Technology: a Field Study." Environmental Biotechnology: Principles and
Applications. Kluwer Academic Pub. ISBN: 0792338774. 417-430.
Caraana, Alex. 1998. "1,200-Foot Permeable Reactive Barrier in Use at the Denver Federal
Center." Ground Water Currents. March, No. 27. (Available through http://clu-in.org.)
Chapman, S.W.; B.T. Byerly; D.J. Smyth; R.D. Wilson; D.M. Mackay. 1997. "Semi-Passive
Oxygen Release Barrier for Enhancement of Intrinsic Bioremediation." In Situ and On-Site
Bioremediation: Volume 4. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH. 209-214.
Clark, O.K.; T.L. Hineline. 1996. "Evaluation of Funnel and Gate System for In Situ Treatment
of TCE Plume." Proceedings of the 28th Mid-Atlantic Industrial and Hazardous Waste
Conference, 14-17 July 1996, Buffalo, NY. Technomic Publishing Co., Lancaster, PA. 337-341.
Clark, D.K.; T.L. Hineline; J. Vogan; S.F. O'Hannesin. 1996. "In Situ Treatment of a TCE
Plume Using a Funnel and Gate System: a Case Study." Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic
Chemicals in Groundwater: Prevention, Detection, and Restoration. National NWWA/API
Conference, November 1996, Houston, TX. National Water Well Association. 165-174.
Clark, D.K.; J. Vogan; S. O'Hannesin. 1996. "Application of Passive Remediation for
Groundwater Impacted with Chlorinated Solvents." Remediation Management, 4th quarter 1996.
Cole, Jason D.; Sandra Woods; Kenneth Williamson; David Roberts. 1998. "Demonstration of a
Permeable Barrier Technology for Pentachlorophenol-Contaminated Groundwater." Designing
and Applying Treatment Technologies: Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant
Compounds. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH. 121-126.
Cumming, Lydia; Bruce Sass; Arun Gavaskar; Eric Drescher; Travis Williamson; Melody
Drescher. 1998. "Bench-Scale Tracer Tests for Evaluating Hydraulic Performance of Permeable
Barrier Media." Designing and Applying Treatment Technologies: Remediation of Chlorinated
and Recalcitrant Compounds. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH. 97-102.
Curtis, G.P.; P.B. McMshon. 1998. "Numerical Simulation of Geochemical Reactions at a Zero
Valent Iron Wall Remediation Site." 1998 American Geophysical Union Spring Meeting, 26-29
May, Boston, MA.
-------
' HI • f'li »!"IP „:"!!•!. i1'-1 'ir11 I|I|:TI i>. r rKvra i '"': .wi?, '\\n^". ^ mmfmiu • i\f'' ^.w^1 li'tn iiT.11'-1'! 'BiiiiiT'ii:1 ''''iriiisp
Dwyer, B.P.; D.C. Marozas; K. Cantrell; W. Stewart. 1996. Laboratory and Field Scale
Demonstration of Reactive Barrier Systems. 13pp. SAND-96-2500. DE97001355.
Dwyer, B P.; b-CMarozas. 1997. "In-Situ Remediation of Uranium Contaminated
Q^pundwater." 1997 International Containment Technology^ Conference and Exhibition, 9-12
Fpweather, V. 1996. "When Toxics Meet Metal." Civil Engineering—ASCE, 66:5,44-48.
W"t> :' . ' iiiiii Jiil'Ii i .' , . i i 'i "• : ' .; i1, • :;. j " '{ iivi, ' :; . ,,: ii i;1; i '• : .'. : ,
Fedleral RemeSiation Technologies Roundtable. 1998. Remediation Case Studies: Innovative
Groundwater Treatment Technologies, Volume 11. EPA/542/R-98/015. PB99-106775.
r
iSiji1
Fgltcorn? Ed; Randy Breeden. 1997. "Reactive Barriers for Uranium Removal." Ground Water
Currents. December, No. 26. (Available through http://clu-m.org.)
Focht, R.M.; R.W. Gillham. 1995. "Dechlorination of 1,2,3-Trichloropropane by Zero-Valent
Jjgn.** T$e,2(BP American Chemical Society National Meeting, Division of Environmental
^'^.^ ' 2-7_April 'l995\' Anaheim, CA. Preprint Extended Abstracts. 35:1, 741-743.
Focht, R.; J. Vogan; S. O'Hannesin. 1996. "Field Application of Reactive Iron Walls for In-Situ
Degradation of Volatile Organic Compounds in Groundwater." Remediation, 6:3, 81-94.
Focht, R.M.; JX. Vogan; S.F. O'Hannesin. 1997. "Hydraulic Studies of In-Situ Permeable
Reactive Barriers." 1997 International Containment Technology Conference and Exhibition, 9-
12 February, St. Petersburg, FL. 975-981. CONF-9702d8-Proc. DE98001967.
Fjcuchter, J.SJ; C.£ Cole; MIX Williams; V.R. Vermeul; S.S. Teel; IB. Amonette; J.E.
S|ecsody; S B~ Yabusaki. 1997. ^'Creation of a Subsurface Permeable Treatment Barrier Using
In-Situ Redox Manipulation." 1997 International Containment Technology Conference and
Exhibition, P-l2 February, Si. Petersburg, FL. 704-710. CONF-970208-Prbc. DE98001967.
Qallant, William A.; Brian Myller. 1997. "Tne Results of a Zero Valence Metal Reactive Wall
Demonstration at Lowry AFB, Colorado." Air & Waste Management Association's 90th
Annual Meeting & Exhibition, 8-13 June 1997, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Gallinati, J.D.; S.D. Warner. 1994. "Hydraulic Design Considerations for Permeable In-Situ
GjpundwaterTreatment Walls." Association of Groundwater Scientists and Engineers, NGWA,
October 1994, Las Vegas, NV.
Gallma'ti J.DT; SS. Warner; C.L. Yamane; F.S. Szerdy; D.A. Hankins; D.W. Major. 1995.
"Design and Evaluation of an In-Situ Ground Water Treatment Wall Composed of Zero-Valent
Iron." Ground Water, 33:5, 834-835.
ITS: , "if "I* :;s3i : ;••; ' ' : • : •:. .'•] •: it, ;,;, i., li •, ' ':• i . • "• > ,
-------
Gavaskar, Arun; Neeraj Gupta; Bruce Sass; Tad Fox; Robert Jonosy. 1997. Design Guidance for
Application of Permeable Barriers to Remediate Dissolved Chlorinated Solvents. 202 pp. NTIS.
AL/EQ-TR-1997-0014. AD-A327159.
Gillham, R.W.; D.R. Burris. 1992. "Recent Developments in Permeable In Situ Treatment Walls
for Remediation of Contaminated Groundwater." Third International Conference on Ground
Water Quality Research: Subsurface Restoration Conference, 21-24 June 1992, Dallas, TX. 66-
68.
Gillham, R.W.; D.W. Blowes; C.J. Ptacek; S.F. O'Hannesin. 1994. "Use of Zero-Valent Metals
in In-Situ Remediation of Contaminated Ground Water." In-Situ Remediation: Scientific Basis
for Current and Future Technologies—3 3rd Hanford Symposium on Health and the
Environment. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH. Part 2, 913-930.
Gillham, R.W.; S.O. O'Hannesin; S. Orth; J. Vogan. 1996. "Field Applications of Metal
Enhanced Dehalogenation of Chlorinated Organic Contaminants." WEFTEC '95: 68th Annual
Conference & Exposition of the Water Environment Federation, 21-25 Oct 1995, Miami Beach,
FL. Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA. p 224. CONF-951023.
Gillham, R. W.; S. F. O'Hannesin; M. S. Odziemkowski; R. A. Garcia-Delgado; R. M. Focht;
W. H. Marulewicz; J. E. Rhodes. 1997. "Enhanced Degradation of VOCs: Laboratory and
Pilot-Scale Field Demonstration." 1997 International Containment Technology Conference, 9-12
February, St. Petersburg, FL. 858-863.
Gillham, R.W.; D.R. Burris. 1997. "Recent Developments in Permeable in Situ Treatment Walls
for Remediation of Contaminated Groundwater." Subsurface Restoration, Ann Arbor Press,
Chelsea, MI. 343-356.
Gillham, R. 1998. "In Situ Remediation of Groundwater Using Granular Iron: Case Studies."
Subsurface Barrier Technologies Conference: Engineering Advancements and Application
Considerations for Innovative Barrier Technologies, 26-27 January 1998, Tucson, AZ.
International Business Communications, Southborough, MA.
Gravelding, D. 1998. "Design and Construction of a 1200 Foot Funnel & Gate System."
Subsurface Barrier Technologies Conference: Engineering Advancements and Application
Considerations for Innovative Barrier Technologies, 26-27 January 1998, Tucson, AZ.
International Business Communications, Southborough, MA.
Gupta, N.; B.M. Sass; A.R. Gavaskar; J.R. Sminchak; T.C. Fox; F.A. Snyder; D. O'Dwyer; C.
Reeter. 1998. "Hydraulic Evaluation of a Permeable Barrier Using Tracer Tests, Velocity
Measurements, and Modeling." Designing and Applying Treatment Technologies: Remediation
of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH. 157-162.
-------
j:1;1 ' j|>i,! i ... i*!1'1; !; '| ' ,,,,., ',:", .. '"/ • • , "' .? f . ' . , ' .';' [;, i: , II l.jji , \ •'.; ,j | • '4 . :":':;'
i'.i . Illllit !"" < : 1111,. li.i.:.|!l ..!.'• . ..,.;. ' i ,1 . . ' .: ", . r, ! ' >.r- " J' , »J ' : '" 'II I! i, ' "'!- I
Haigh, Dale. 1997. "Reactive Barrier System Reduces TC!E hi Northern Ireland installation."
''Water(Inline,'5I8/6S/97 (Available"at'
http://news.wateronline.com/case-studies/CS707292.html.)
,«iv, i a! t ..... • nii'i, amt , < • r .[."• "i r ,; ... : • •'.•..•'' • • "•' ... iif: ' 'J ' „; i.... • • »t i .:
Hayes, Joseph J.; Donald L. Marcus. 1997. "Design of a Permeable Reactive Barrier In Situ
Remediation System, Vermont Site." In Situ Remediation of the Geoenvironment. American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 71, 56-67.
Hubble, D.W.; R.W. Gillham; J.A. Cherry. 1997. "Emplacement of Zero-Valent Iron for
Remediation of Deep Containment Plumes." 1997 International Containment Technology
Conference, 9-12 February, St. Petersburg. 872-878. CONF-970208-Proc. DE98001967.
Janosy, R. J.; J. E. Hicks; D. 0" Sullivan. 1998. "Site Characterization to Aid in the Design of a
Permeable Barrier at Dover AFB." Designing and Applying Treatment Technologies:
Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds.Battelle Press, Columbus, OH.
127-132. "[ _" ,; , . r . , , ; ,: . , ._. |ii;:._ ^ . ;i; :,
Jefferis, S.A.; G.H. Norris; A.O. Thomas. 1997. "Developments in Permeable and Low
Permeability Barriers." 1997 International Containment Technology Conference and Exhibition,
9-12 February, St. Petersburg, FL. 817-826. CONF-970208-Proc. DE98001967.
Jefferis, Stephan A.; Graham H. Norris. 1998. "Reactive Treatment Zones: Concepts and a Case
History." NATO/CCMS Pilot Study: Evaluation of Demonstrated and Emerging Technologies
for the Treatment of Contaminated Land and Groundwater—Phase III. Session on Treatment
Walls and Permeable Reactive Barriers, No. 229. 66-76. EPA/542/R-98/003.
Korte, Nic; Olivia R. West; Liyuan Liang; Mark J. Pelfrey; Thomas C. Houk. 1997. "A Field-
Scale Test Facility for Permeable Reactive Barriers at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant."
Federal Facilities Environmental Journal. 8:3,105-104.
Lqg,. David R.; David J.A. Smyth; Steve G. Shikaze; Robin Jowett; Dale S. Hartwig; Claire
MlSoY 1998, HWa5-and-Curtain for Passive Collection/Treatment of Contaminant Plumes."
I H , * ifiiiSiM' J ' * ^ ,„„,,,, ,„ ,
Designing and Applying Treatment Technologies: Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant
Compounds. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH. 77-84.
Liang, L.; O.R. West; N.E. Korte; et al. 1997. The X-625 Groundwater Treatment Facility: A
^c^^f^^6][Tric^lo7oe^^ene't)echtorinati6n Using Iron Filings for the X-120/X-749
s. 71 pp. ORNL/TM--13410. DE980d7047.
'"'p »in'iiii IIP i,! i'l'i'iuu
lenzie, P. D.; S. S. Baghel; G. R. Eykholt; D. P. Horney; J. J. Salvo; T. M. Sivavec. 1995.
^gj^|e 5gmo"nstrat!on of Reductive Dechlorination of Chlorinated Ethenes by Iron Metal."
'",11*1 1." "'.' i «III 11. Willlli!'". .|.||l!lillll!l i, y-tf, " i!{:i ',; , »u I'l..!..! • -i," i.; ' .,;. ''*Lfi'<- •'>'• '•-,''„ ••*.'•• ""• > "i' * S" '"« ' .rif11/1'W ' ;" " • ' rV " '"j J
Trie 209th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Anaheim, CA. Preprint Extended
Abstracts, Divisionof Environmental Chemistry. 35:1,796-799.
Hill ' i *,! : . :.:|!||||li: . Sill . • '. ' .":,. . , • , , • ,; .... i .5,; ' ,:
I;
it!
. '|,|L , 11.
iili II!
-------
Manz, C.; K. Quinn. 1997. "Permeable Treatment Wall Design and Cost Analysis." 1997
International Containment Technology Conference and Exhibition, 9-12 February, St.
Petersburg, FL. 788-794. CONF-970208-Proc. DE98001967.
Marcus, Donald L.; James Farrell. 1998. "Reactant Sand-Fracking Pilot Test Results." Designing
and Applying Treatment Technologies: Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant
Compounds. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH. 85-90.
Mayer, K.U.; D.W. Blowes; E.G. Frind. 1998. "Formulation of the Model MIN3P and Its
Application to an In-Situ Reactive Barrier." 1998 American Geophysical Union Spring Meeting,
26-29 May, Boston, MA.
Morkin, Mary; J. Barker; R. Devlin; Michaye McMaster. 1998. "In Situ Sequential Treatment of
a Mixed Organic Plume Using Granular Iron, O2 and CO2 Sparging." Designing and Applying
Treatment Technologies: Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds. Battelle
Press, Columbus, OH. 289-294.
Morrison, Stan. 1998. Research and Application of Permeable Reactive Barriers. U.S.
Department of Energy, Grand Junction Office. 50 pp. (Available at
http://www.gwrtac.org/html/tech_status.html)
Morrison, Stan. 1998. "Fry Canyon Demonstration Project." Subsurface Barrier Technologies
Conference: Engineering Advancements and Application Considerations for Innovative Barrier
Technologies, 26-27 January 1998, Tucson, AZ. International Business Communications,
Southborough, MA.
Muza, Richard. 1997. "Reactive Walls Demonstrated." Ground Water Currents. April, No. 24.
(Available through http://clu-in.org.)
Naftz, D.L. 1997. "Field Demonstration of Reactive Chemical Barriers to Control Radionuclide
and Trace-Element Contamination in Ground Water, Fry Canyon, Utah." 1997 GSA Annual
Meeting, 20-23 October 1997, Salt Lake City, UT. A-335.
Naftz, D.L.; G.W. Freethey; J.A. Davis; R. Breeden; E. Feltcorn; R. Wilhelm; R.R. Spangler; S.J.
Morrison; B. Lewis; J. Brown. 1997. "Hydrologic Characterization of the Fry Canyon, Utah Site
Prior to Field Demonstration of Reactive Chemical Barriers to Control Radionuclide and
Trace-Element Contamination in Groundwater." 1997 International Containment Technology
Conference and Exhibition, 9-12 February, St. Petersburg, FL. 725-729. CONF-970208-Proc.
DE98001967.
O'Brien, K.; G. Keyes; N. Sherman. 1997. "Implementation of a Funnel-and-Gate Remediation
System." 1997 International Containment Technology Conference and Exhibition, 9-12
February, St. Petersburg, FL. 895-901. CONF-970208-Proc. DE98001967.
-------
O'Hannesin, S.F.; R.W. Gillham. 1992. "A Permeable Reaction Wall for In Situ Degradation of
Halogenated Organic Compounds." The 45th Canadian Geotechnical Society Conference, 25-28
October 1992, Toronto, Ontario.
O'f annesin, S.| .; FL W. Giiiham. 1 993 . "In Situ Degradation of Halogenated Organics by
Permeable Reaction Wall." Ground Water Currents, March. EPA/542/N-93/003. (Available
|pl!ii||i, r ! • „ ,i'!,,Ti' ,nii Kllllllllllllllilliii'i - IIHIIIII!! ' ".|J .'» •' "",!' I,1!, :.!"• '!" •,',,'! ', '• 1 ' ' ..... If UP '. ..... ,|!'|n,,'i 'I1 'ill:!,,,1* ",! ", • II ' ' v ,' ' '•
through http://clu-hi.org)
O'Hannesin, S.F.; R.W. Gillham. 1998. "Long-Term Performance of an In Situ 'Iron Wall' for
Remediation of VOCs." Ground Water. 36:1, 164-170.
Porter, J. 1998. "Greening Process." Ground Engineering, 31:7, 32-33.
Powell, R.M.; R.W. Puls; D.W^ Blowes; R.Wr&llham; D. Sennits 1998. Permeable Reactive
Barrier Technologies for Contaminant Remediation. 114 pp. EPA/66b/R-98/125. (Also available
at http://www.epa.gov/ada/reports.html)
Pu|st R. W.; D. A. Clark; C. J. Paul; J. Vardy. 1994. "Transport and Transformation of
Hexavalent Chromium Through Soils and into Ground Water." Journal of Soil Contamination,
3:C 2^3-224. (Ilso availaW fromNTIS i'as °"1'
Puls, R. W ; R^M. Powell; C. J. Paul. 1995. "In Situ Remediation of Ground Water
Contaminated wth Chrpmate and Chlorinated Solvents Using Zero-Valent Iron: a Field Study."
ThejOPthNalionaTMeeting of the American Chemical Society, Anaheim, CA. Preprint Extended
Abstracts, Division of Environmental Chemistry. 35:1, 788-791.
Iftn ! ....... , •: Silii 'Sftir • i ..... i iv ..... •.«;: • . •. • • ......... i, ••< •. . • -i,,';,rt • '.i- ...... "i ...... i'. ....... . ...... /• ,, ...... .•»:. ...... ,.:.t i. .in, • .•,.•!•
Puls, R. W.; C. J. Paul; R. M. Powell. 1996. "In Situ Immobilization and Detoxification of
Chromate-Contaminated Ground Water Using Zero-Valent Iron: Field Experiments at the USCG
Support Center^ Elizabeth City, North Carolina." The 4th Great Lakes Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Conference: In-Situ Remediation of Contaminated Sites, University of Illinois,
Chicago, IL 69-77. (Paper also available fromNTIS. Order PB96- 1693 13.)
Pujs, R.W.; C.J. Paul; R.M. Powell. 1996. "Remediation of Cluromate-Contaminated Ground
Water Using Zero-Valent Iron: Field Test at USCG Support Center, Elizabeth' City, North
Carolina^' "The lj* Annual Conference on Hazardous Waste Remediation: 1996 HSRC/WERC
Joint Conference on the Environment. Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS. 69-77. (Paper
also available fromNTIS. Order
Pu£ R.W!; EXW. Blowes; R.y!po^U;b.S.l!Sc1mitz; l! Vo^. 19 jf^Nb^ Workshop on
Permeable "Reactive "Barriers in Ground Water. 10 ppl EPA76007A-97yb29. PB97-192827.
'. Sill I'tllSU
t JR'.:! , -I" sjiM
-------
Puls, R.W.; CJ. Paul; PJ. Clark. 1997. "Remediation of Chromate-Contaminated Ground Water
Using an In-Situ Permeable Reactive Mixture: Field Pilot Test, Elizabeth City, North Carolina."
The 213th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, San Francisco, CA. Preprint
Extended Abstracts, Division of Environmental Chemistry. 37:1. 241-243. (Paper also available
fromNTIS as EPA/600/A-97/002. Order PB97-192819)
Puls, Robert W.; Robert W. Powell. 1997. Permeable Reactive Subsurface Barriers for the
Interception and Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbon and Chromium(VI) Plumes in
Ground Water. 4 pp. EPA/600/F-97/008. (Available at http://www.epa.gov/ada.)
Puls,, R. W. 1998. "Remediation of Ground Water Using In-Situ Permeable Reactive Barriers:
Chromate and Other Inorganic Contaminants." Water Resources and the Urban Environment
'98, Proceedings of the National Conference on Environmental Engineering, American Society
of Civil Engineers. Chicago, IL. 116-121. (Paper also available fromNTIS as
EPA/600/A-98/043. Order PB98-135122.)
Puls, R. W.; D.W. Blowes; R.W. Gillham. 1998. "Emplacement Verification and Long-term
Performance Monitoring for Permeable Reactive Barrier at the USCG Support Center, Elizabeth
City, North Carolina." International Conference on Groundwater Quality, Tubingen, Germany.
(Paper also available From NTIS as EPA/600/A-98/085. Order PB98-151285.)
Puls, Robert W. 1998. "Permeable Reactive Barrier Research at the National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency." NATO/CCMS Pilot Study:
Evaluation of Demonstrated and Emerging Technologies for the Treatment of Contaminated
Land and Groundwater—Phase III. Special Session on Treatment Walls and Permeable Reactive
Barriers, No. 229. 3-5. EPA/542/R-98/003.
Puls, R.W.; R.M. Powell; CJ. Paul; D. Blowes. 1998. "Ground Water Remediation of
Chromium Using Zero-Valent Iron in a Permeable Reactive Barrier." Field Testing of Innovative
Subsurface Remediation Technologies, American Chemical Society Symposium, 13-17 April
1997, San Francisco, CA. (Paper also available fromNTIS as EPA/600/A-98/108. Order PB98-
155088.)
Reeter, Charles; Arun Gavaskar; Neeraj Gupta; Bruce Sass. 1998. "Permeable Reactive Wall
Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Groundwater: NAS Moffett Field, Mountain View,
California." After the Rain Has Fallen: 2nd International Water Resources Engineering
Conference, 3-7 August 1998, Memphis, TN. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
153-158.
Robertson, W.D.; D.W. Blowes; CJ. Ptacek; J.A. Cherry. 1995. "Waterloo Denitrification
Barrier: Longer Term Performance of Pilot Scale Field Trials." Proceedings of the Waterloo
Centre for Groundwater Research Annual Septic System Conference—Alternative Systems:
Nutrient Removal and Pathogenic Microbes, 15 May 1995, Waterloo, Ontario. 16-27.
-------
iinniiiiiiiiiiiiniini niinnnnn inn iiinnnnnnnn n i in nn in nllinni 11 iniiini iiiniiiiiinniiiinn innninnnnnnnnnnn iiniininw iiniinn IN in in in niiinni i in n i i mi nil in n i i i linn i niin in mini in n iiiiiiiiiiiiiinnn in i mini n null nn n i nniinii i 11 iinnini in in inn inn i HI wiiiiniiiiiiiiiinniiininii nnnniinnnn inn in iiinnnni
in in in ii i i n i|iiii i MI in n i in nn Him 11 i i i n iii in i in i |h ii in in n i n i in i n nn ill
i
Robertson, W.D.; J.A. Cherry. 1995. "In Situ Denitrification of Septic-System Nitrate Using
Reactive Porous Media Barriers: Field Trials." Ground Water. 33:1,99-111.
Robertson, W.D.; J.A. Cherry. 1997. "Long-Term Performan^
Barrier." 1997 International Containment Technology Conference and Exhibition, 9-12
February, St. Petersburg, FL. 691-696. CONF-970208-Proc. DE98001967.
nn nn i ii ill i nil n i iiniinn i n nil i i i i nn i n n i i
Rorner, James R.; Stephanie O'Hannesin. 1998. "Use of Continuous Trenching Technique to
Install Iron Permeable Barriers." Designing and Applying Treatment Technologies: Remediation
of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH. 139-143.
Ro§e, AlarL'''if If- "An 'Underground Plan' to Capture Radioactivity}' North Renfrew Times,
l:" ; ;
Roy, S.J.; Z. Li; K. Hildenbrand; R.S. Bowman; R.L. Johnson; T.L. Johnson; M. Perrott. 1998.
"A Surfactant-Modified Zeolite Permeable Barrier for the Remediation of Chrome and PCE:
Pilot Study Results." WERC-WRHSRC-NMHWMS '98 Joint Conference on the Environment, 31
March-2 April 1998, Albuquerque, NM.
Sabatini, David A.; Robert C.''Knox;^ Edwin E. Tucker; Robert W. Puls. 1997. Environmental
Research Brief. Innovative Measures for Subsurface Chromium Remediation: Source Zone,
Concentrated Plume, and Dilute Plume. 16^ pp; gp^QQ/gigy/QQ^^ ^ai|at)le at
http://www.epa.gov/ada/)
Sass, Bruce M.; Arun R. Gavaskar; Neeraj Gupta; Woong-Sand Yoon; James E. Hicks; Deirdre
O'Dwyer; Charles Reeter. 1998. "Evaluating the Moffett Field Permeable Barrier Using
I 11|| I I , 111 II I \\ ," ,;»! I! I :l;~::,'IffiEillllllllllllllllllll'l1' :|ll!l!llll!IIIH,i I, .„,,:!," *?«,, Sin '' "' ri'ilillh !,,'i n I! ,||| f •''! .hLi.li'llin • ft"! i: !>,ii I III1 IT I!',,1!!1! "! < ^ IN, • Ui'".', |i|| H1 ni1 „ i IS ,«bill i
-------
Shelp, G.S.; W. Chesworth; G. Spiers. 1995. "The Amelioration of Acid Mine Drainage by an in
Situ Electrochemical Method. I. Employing Scrap Iron as the Sacrificial Anode." Applied
Geochemistry. (10): 705-713.
Shoemaker, S.H.; J.F. Greiner; R.W. Gillham. 1995. "Permeable Reactive Barriers. Assessment
of Barrier Containment Technologies: a Comprehensive Treatment for Environmental
Applications." Barrier Containment Technologies for Environmental Remediation Applications.
NTIS. Chapter 11, 301-353.
Smith, M.H.; J.A. Stinson; D. O'Sullivan; R.S. Wolf. 1997. "Permeable Barrier Demonstration."
Military Engineer. No.586, p 56.
Smyth, D.J.A.; J.A. Cherry; RJ. Jowett. 1994. "Funnel-and-Gate for In Situ Groundwater Plume
Containment." SuperfundXV, 28 November-1 December 1994, WA, D.C.
Smyth, D.J.A.; B.T. Byerley; S.W. Chapman; R.D. Wilson; D.M. Mackay. 1995. "Oxygen-
Enhanced In Situ Biodegradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Groundwater Using a Passive
Interception System." The 5th Annual Symposium on Groundwater and Soil Remediation, 2-6
October 1995, Toronto. EPS Publications, Hull, PQ, Canada. ISBN: 0-660-59979-1. 23-34.
Starr, R.C.; J.A. Cherry. 1994. "In Situ Remediation of Contaminated Ground Water: the Funnel-
and-Gate System." Ground Water. 32:3,465-476.
Steimle, R. 1995. In Situ Remediation Technology Status Report: Treatment Walls. U.S. EPA,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 31 pp. EPA/542/K-94/004. (Available in PDF
at http://www.epa.gov/swertiol/pubitech.html)
Szerdy, Frank S.; John D. Gallinatti; Scott D. Warner; Carol L. Yamane; Deborah A. Hankins;
John L. Vogan. 1996. "In Situ Groundwater Treatment by Granular Zero-Valent Iron: Design,
Construction and Operation of an In Situ Treatment Wall." Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (NAPLs)
in Subsurface Environment: Assessment and Remediation. American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, VA. ISBN: 0-7844-0203-5,245-256.
Tratnyek, Paul G. 1996. "Putting Corrosion to Use: Remediating Contaminated Groundwater
with Zero-Valent Metals." Chemistry & Industry, 1 July 1996, No. 13,499-503.
U.S. EPA.1996. A Citizen's Guide to Treatment Walls. 4 pp. EPA/542/F-96/016. (Available at
http://www.clu-in.org/publ .htm)
U.S. EPA. 1997. SITE Technology Capsule: Metal Enhanced Dechlorination of Volatile Organic
Compounds Using an Aboveground Reactor, EnviroMetal Technologies, Inc. 8 pp.
EPA/540/R-96/503a.
-------
I III III 11
U.S. EPA. 1997. Innovative Technology Evaluation Report. Metal Enhanced Dechlorination of
Volatile Organic Compounds Using an Aboveground Reactor, EnviroMetal Technologies, Inc.
94 pp. EPA/540/R-96/503.
U.S. EPA, 1998. Innovative Technology Evaluation Report. EnviroMetal Technologies, Inc.:
MeJal-Enhjanc^Dechlorinqttqn of Volatile Organic Compounds Using an In-Situ Reactive Iron
_.,
." il t ,.
-------
Vogan, J.L.; B.J. Butler; M.S. Odziemkowski; G. Friday; R.W. Gillham. 1998. "Inorganic and
Biological Evaluation of Cores from Permeable Iron Reactive Barriers." Designing and Applying
Treatment Technologies: Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds. Battelle
Press, Columbus, OH. ISBN: 1-57477-061-6. 163-168.
Warner, S.D.; J.D. Gallinatti; J.H. Honniball. 1995. "The Use of Field Redox Measurements in
Assessing Remediation of Ground Water Containing Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Chlorinated
Organic Compounds." Ground Water, 33:5, 857-858.
Warner, S.D.; C.L; Yamane; J.D. Gallinati; F.S. Szerdy; D.A. Hankins. 1995. "Assessing the
Feasibility of Permeable Reactive Barriers for Treating VOC-Affected Groundwater In Situ:
Experience from the First Full-Scale Commercial Application in California." International
Containment Technology Workshop, Permeable Reactive Barriers Subgroup, 29-31 August 1995,
Baltimore, MD.
Warner, S.D.; C.L. Yamane; J.D. Gallinati; F.S. Szerdy; D.A. Hankins. 1997. "Permeable
Reactive Barriers for Treating VOC-Affected Groundwater: Revisiting the Sunnyvale 'Iron
Wall.'" Environmental Management and Technology Conference, 5 November 1997, Long
Beach, CA. 269-282.
Warner, S.D. 1998. "The Feasibility of Permeable Reactive Barriers for in Situ Groundwater
Treatment: the Sunnyvale 'Iron Wall' and Beyond." Subsurface Barrier Technologies
Conference: Engineering Advancements and Application Considerations for Innovative Barrier
Technologies, 26-27 January 1998, Tucson, AZ. International Business Communications,
Southborough, MA.
Warner, Scott D.; Carol L. Yamane; John D. Gallinatti; Deborah A. Hankins. 1998.
"Considerations for Monitoring Permeable Ground-Water Treatment Walls." Journal of
Environmental Engineering. 124:6, 524-529.
Warner, Scott D.; Carol L. Yamane; N.T. Bice; F.S. Szerdy; J. Vogan; D.W. Major; D.A.
Hankins. 1998. "Technical Update: the First Commercial Subsurface Permeable Reactive
Treatment Zone Composed of Granular Zero-Valent Iron." Designing and Applying Treatment
Technologies: Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds. Battelle Press,
Columbus, OH. 145-150.
Watson, D.; M. Leavitt; C. Smith; T. Klasson; B. Bostick; L. Liang; D. Moss. 1997. "Bear Creek
Valley Characterization Area Mixed Wastes Passive In Situ Treatment Technology
Demonstration Project Status Report." 1997 International Containment Technology Conference,
St. Petersburg, FL. 730-736. CONF-970208-Proc. DE98001967.
Watson, David; Baohua Gu; Will Goldberg; Steve Dunstan; Elizabeth Rasor. 1998. "Installation
and Design of Two Reactive Barriers for Treatment of Uranium and Other Contaminants at the
S-3 Pond Site, Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant." Subsurface Barrier Technologies Conference:
Engineering Advancements and Application Considerations for Innovative Barrier Technologies,
26-67 January 1998, Tucson, AZ. International Business Communications, Southborough, MA.
-------
Weiss, H.; F.-D. Kopmke; P. Popp; L. Wunsche. 1998. "In Situ Remediation Research in a
Complexly Contaminated Aquifer: the SAFIRA Test Site at Bitterfeld, Germany." NATO/CCMS
Pilot Study: Evaluation of Demonstrated and Emerging Technologies for the Treatment of
Contaminated Land and Groundwater—Phase III. Special Session on Treatment Walls and
Permeable Reactive Barriers, No. 229. 84-91. EPA/542/R-98/003.
Wilson, E.K. 1995. "Zero-Valent Metals Provide Possible Solution to Groundwater Problems."
Chemical & Engineering News, 73:27,19-22.
Yamane, C.L.; S.D. Warner; J.D. Gallinati; F.S. Szerdy; T.A. Delfino; D.A. Hankins; J.L.
Vogan. 1995. "Installation of a Subsurface Groundwater Treatment Wall Composed of Granular
Zero-Valent Iron." Proceedings of the 209th American Chemical Society National Meeting, 2-7
April 1995, Anaheim, CA. Preprints, 35:1,792-795.
__,, 1998 "Field Testing of a Permeable Reactive Zone." Underground Tank Technology Update,
12:5 (Sept/Oct), 5-6.
—.1997. '^Iron Constitution: Golders Pioneers First EurojpjBan^OseqiraR^ea^ve Barrier System
for Groundwater Remediation." Ground Engineering. 30:6,20.
—: 1997. "Nifty Iron Wall to Confront Caldwell Plume." Superfund Week, 11:27, July 11.
__,, 1998 "Reactive Iron Walls Offer Passive Ground-Water Restoration." Hazardous Waste
•,:CansutimK 16:2 (Mar/Apr) 1.2-1.6.
iHK"! ,!;!' : Hi:!
illllilll'llilKi '!' M ':'
•in 'nui> < :i ;,;'*
I •:
, '".< :\ !',!» fi
. ' M1!!, c" Cliiili iiiil
i' , '"'', iih I;1!:' «'!
111 III
«!• III:.'; ':,. 'I!
-------