United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and Development (481)
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (5102G)
EPA S42-F-98-D19
Decmeber 1998
www.epa.gov
8€PA
RTDF Update
RTDF
Remediation Technologies
Development Forum
A Progress Report on the Remediation Technologies Development Forum (RTDF)
INSIDE
Sediments Remediation
Action Team Revitalized Page 1
Coordination Research
on the Long-Term PRB
Performance Receives
Funding Support Page 2
State-of-the-Science
Summary To Be Issued Page 2
PRB Training Course Page 3
lasagna™ Selected for
Paducah Site; Available
for Licensing Page 3
In Situ Flushing Action
Team Meets Page 5
About the RTDF
The Remediation Technologies
Development Forum (RTDF),
established in 1992, is a
consortium of partners from
industry, government, and
academia working to develop
safer, more effective, and less
costly characterization and
treatment technologies for
remediation. For information
on RTDF and Action Teams
visit the RTDF World Wide
Web site at
h ftp://www.rtdf. org
SEDIMENTS REMEDIATION TEAM
Focus:
• PAHs, chlorinateds, metals
• Degradation/containment
• In surface water
Sediments Remediation
Action Team Revitalized
About 40 participants attended a meeting of
the Sediments Remediation Action Team on
September 16-17 in Cincinnati, the first since
1996. Team Co-Chairs Dennis Timberlake
(U.S. EPA) and Richard Jensen (DuPont)
pointed out that interest in sediments has
risen dramatically since 1996, and industry is
placing more resources into sediment
remediation efforts. These factors have pro-
vided impetus and opportunity for
re-energizing the Team's efforts.
The goals for this meeting were to:
• Re-define the Action Team's objectives
based on the interests of the participat-
ing members;
• Encourage active participation by new
members;
• Coordinate with other related organiza-
tions; and
• Launch self-empowered subgroups to
formulate and carry out independent
sediment remediation strategies.
The agenda featured briefings on concurrent
sediment remediation programs by a variety
of interests, including the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (US ACE), U.S. Navy, EPA
National Risk Management Research
Laboratory (NRMRL); EPA Great Lakes
National Program Office (GLNPO), and EPA
Hazardous Substance Research Center/
South and Southwest, a consortium
involving Louisiana State University, Rice
University, and Georgia Institute of
Technology. Speakers also provided
participants with an overview of the
industry-sponsored Sediment Management
Work Group and EPA's Contaminated
Aquatic Sediment Remedial Guidance
Workgroup (CASRGW).
Industry Work Group
The Sediment Management Work Group
was formed earlier this year primarily from
among representatives of the regulated com-
munity with responsibility for remediation of
contaminated sediment sites, including the
aerospace, automotive, chemical, paper, pe-
troleum refining, and utilities industries, as
well as major industry associations. The
group addresses a wide range of contami-
nants and sediment issues and indicated its
interest in coordinating efforts with the Ac-
tion Team, particularly in technology
transfer and information exchange.
Multi-Agency Workgroup
EPA's Contaminated Aquatic Sediment Re-
medial Guidance Workgroup is a
multi-agency work group that currently in-
cludes representatives of the USAGE, the
U.S. Department of Interior's Fish and Wild-
life Service, the U.S. Departmentof
Commerce'sNational Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration (NOAA), and EPA's
Office of Water (OW), Office of General
-------
RTDF Update
December 1998
Council (OGC), Office of Research and
Development (ORD), and Technology In-
novation Office (TIO). The group wishes
to develop a unified strategy for EPA to
use in addressing contaminated aquatic
sediment sites. Because considerable
guidance is available on sediment
remediation, part of CASRGW's goal is to
collect, assemble, and integrate existing
guidance information developed through-
out the English-speaking world.
Subgroups
During its 1996 meetings, the Action
Team had formed three subgroups—As-
sessment, Capping, and Treatment (In
Situ/CDFs). At the 1998 meeting, the
Treatment and Assessment Subgroups
met in separate sessions to identify objec-
tives and began to develop a work plan
for the future. Representatives from the
U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station
who chair the Capping Subgroup were
unable to attend, so capping issues were
addressed in the Treatment Subgroup
, meeting^.___ m_____.=m_=__=_^___
The Assessment Subgroup, led by Ralph
Stahl (DuPont), reported that it has two
major roles: to support the Treatment
Subgroup; and to "push the envelope"
on new techniques and applications. The
Subgroup will address both human and
ecological issues as they pertain to
chemical processes, exposure risk, natural
recovery, and system processes. Mem-
bers plan to conduct a pilot
demonstration and are looking at a range
of potential sites. A government co-chair
for the Subgroup is being sought.
The Treatment Subgroup, led by Karen
Miller (U.S. Navy), reported that it is
seeking an industry co-chair. The
Subgroup identified the Philadelphia and
Charleston Navy Yards as possible
investigation sites for natural recovery
and natural attenuation. Although the
Subgroup did not identify specific
locations to test other remediation
methods, members indicated that the ideal
would be a well-characterized site at a
federal facility that has regulatory and
regulated community acceptance, a
flexible timeframe, ongoing initiatives, and
high potential for transferability and
applicability of data.
Future Activities
Meeting participants made tentative
plans for a number of conference calls
and activities, including meetings in
January 1999 on the East Coast and in
April in conjunction with the In Situ and
On-Site Bioremediation: The Fifth Inter-
national Symposium in San Diego,
sponsored by Battelle Memorial Institute.
A complete summary of the meeting is
available on the Action Team's home
page on the RTDF World Wide Web site.
PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIERS TEAM
Focus:
Chlorinated solvents, metals
• Degradation/immobilization
• In ground water /
Coordination Research
on Long-Term PRB
Performance Receives
Funding Support
The Permeable Reactive Barriers (PRB)
Action Team has been successful hi coor-
dinating funding for research on the topic
of long-term performance of PRBs. The
Action Team's Steering Committee began
in January 1997 to promote the develop-
ment of a coordinated research approach
by EPA, the Departmentof Energy (DOE),
and the Department of Defense (DoD) for
addressing the issue of long-term perfor-
mance, because the Committee views it as
the primary factor restricting further ac-
ceptance and deployment of this
technology.
During the last year, PRB long-term
performance research proposals to EPA's
National Risk Management Research
Laboratory (NRMRL), DoD's
Environmental Security Technology
Certification Program (ESTCP) and DOE's
Office of Science and Technology (EM-
50) were submitted simultaneously to
ensure maximum coordination and
cost-effectiveness. The proposed
coordination will ensure that data
collected from site-to-site are comparable
while allowing each agency to focus on
its unique needs and strengths. The
Principal Investigators (Pis) for each
agency will ensure that common
techniques and monitoring approaches
are used at the locations within each
agency's purview. Data will be shared
among the agencies through regular
conference calls and mutual
dissemination of routine project reports.
Final reports prepared by each agency to
meet specific milestones also will be
peer-reviewed by the Pis and their
designees from the other agencies.
EPA's portion of the project will focus on
the U:S;Coast'Guard Support Center site
in North Carolina and the Denver Federal
Center site in Colorado. The DOE portion
will focus on the installations at the Y-12
Site at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in
Tennessee, the Rocky Flats Environmen-
tal Technology Site (joint project with
EPA) in Colorado, and at the Kansas City
Plant in Missouri. DoD's portion will in-
clude the Moffett Federal Airfield in
California and other sites.
State-of-the-Science
Summary To Be Issued
TheRTDF'sPermeableReactiveBarriers
Action Team, in cooperation with EPA/
ORD, has published "Permeable Reactive
Barrier Technologies for ContaminantRe-
mediation" (EPA/600/R-98/125), a
state-of-the-science summary of PRB
technology. Its purpose is to provide the
most recent information on PRB technolo-
gies in a format useful to stakeholders,
including implementors, state and federal
regulators, Native American tribes, con- -
sultants, contractors, and other interested
-------
RTDF Update
December 1998
parties. The document includes informa-
tion on treatable and non-treatable
contaminants, barrier wall design, feasibil-
ity studies, construction options, site
characterization needs, and compliance
and performance monitoring, as well as
summaries of several current installations.
The Action Team expects the document
to be a valuable technical resource for all
parties with interest in using this innova-
tive, passive, remediation technology.
"Permeable Reactive Barrier Technologies
for Contaminant Remediation" is available
on the Action Team's home page on the
RTDF World Wide Web site. A copy also
is available on the EPA Web site at
www.epa.gov/ada/sric.html.A hard-copy
edition of the document is expected to be
available before the end of the calendar
year.
PRB Training Course
The Permeable Reactive Barriers Action
Team and the Interstate Technology
Regulatory Cooperation (ITRC) Permeable
Barriers Working Group are developing a
training course and an associated docu-
ment that will assist regulatory
professionals in overseeing design, imple-
mentation, and monitoring of
ground-water remedies involving deploy-
ment of PRBs. The new course will be
offered, beginning next year, in or near
the 10 cities where EPA's Regional offices
are located. The courses will be held at
approximately2-month intervals.
Although some PRBs existed earlier, the
main push to deploy PRBs began in late
1994. Since then, 10-15 full-scale systems
using zero-valent iron as the treatment
medium have been deployed, and an
equal number of field demonstrations
have been conducted. Several other types
of PRB systems (for example, granulated
carbon walls) also have been imple-
mented. Published accounts suggest that
more than 500 sites may be suitable for
PRB deployment over the next 10 years.
Compared to conventional remedies for
contaminated ground water, such as
pump-and-treat systems, PRBs could
save more than $ 1,000,000 per site over
long-term operation if properly designed,
constructed, and monitored.
The training sessions will be geared to-
ward state and federal regulators, but
industry representatives and consultants
also will be encouraged to attend. An ob-
jective of the program is to consolidate
the many efforts that have provided de-
sign and regulatory guidance on PRB
deployment. Several state, federal, and
private organizations have contributed to
the promotion of this technology. The
goal of the training is to provide a single,
high-quality, highly effective program
that has the backing of state and federal
groups responsible for the ultimate appli-
cation of the technology.
Training elements will include:
• the remediation process
• the type and distribution of chemi-
cals in the affected ground water
• hydrogeologic conditions including
ground water velocity, hydrostra-
tigraphy, and hydraulic gradient
information
• hydrochemistry
• ground-water monitoring objectives
• regulatory issues
• constructability of the PRB
• future land use and economic issues
The training program will be designed to
demonstrate the importance of the above
eight factors and provide some back-
ground and experience in assessing each
through a series of lectures, case study
presentations, and classroom exercises.
The RTDF and ITRC believe that both
regulators and designers must be knowl-
edgeable about these factors to ensure
that decision-making processes affecting
PRB deployment are efficient and techni-
cally accurate. Deployment of PRBs that
are technically deficient or monitored in-
correctly not only could negate the
potential long-term cost savings in site
remediation, but also could end up cost-
ing more than conventional remediation.
The training sessions will be led by a
panel of instructors with specific expertise
in PRB development, design, deployment,
and monitoring. The panel will include ex-
pertise from regulatory agencies,
academia, and industry and will partici-
pate directly with the RTDF and ITRC
committees during course development/
delivery.
Additional details about the course and
registration information will be posted on
the PRB Action Team home page on the
RTDF World Wide Web site as they be-
come available.
LASAGNA™ PARTNERSHIP
Focus:
• TCE
• Degradation
• In low-permeability soils i
Lasagna™ Selected for
Paducah Site; Available
for Licensing
With approval of a Record of Decision
(ROD) in mid-summer of 1998, the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) has selected
the Lasagna™ Remediation Technology
for the commercial cleanup of a large con-
taminated cell at its Paducah Gaseous
Diffusion Plant (PGDP)in Kentucky. The
selection of the Lasagna™ process culmi-
nates a multi-year research and
development effort conducted by the
RTDF's Lasagna™ Partnership.
The Lasagna™ technology was tested
and developed under a federal Coopera-
tive Research and Development
Agreement (CRADA) signed in the early
1990's. The CRADA involved a consor-
tium made up of the DOE, EPA, the
Monsanto Company, DuPont, and Gen-
eral Electric (GE). The CRADA was later
followed by a cost-sharing research and
development contract award by DOE,
which included support from several
heavy equipment subcontractors.
-------
RTDF Update 4- December 1998
How It Works
Lasagna™ treats contaminated soil in
situ by coupling electrically-driven trans-
port of contaminants with in situ
treatment processes. In a configuration
that has been successfully tested in the
field, the planar electrodes consist of a
mixture of granular carbon and iron fil-
ings, and are emplaced in the soil at the
outer perimeter of the embedded contami-
nant. Several planar treatment zones are
also emplaced at various intervals be-
tween the electrodes, directly into the
contaminated zone (see Figure 1). The
contaminant is picked up in water and
transported through the treatment zones
in a process known as "electro-osmosis."
The technology has been determined to
be effective for remediation or "dechlori-
nation" of trichloroethylene(TCE) hi
either low-permeable or mixed soils, and it
is believed it will be effective for other
contaminants as well. Other configura-
tions of electrodes and treatment zones
could also be effective, but have not been
tested on a large scale.
Field Tests
Field tests of the Lasagna™ process were
conducted in test plots located at the
PGDP. This site was chosen because a
specific plot of soil there had been con-
taminated with TCE, and the soil was
low-permeable clay, for which Lasagna™
is uniquely suited. Operations were con-
ducted in two phases. In Phase I, the
treatment zones contained activated car-
bon in order to trap TCE from the soil.
The operations began hi January 1995
witha 10' X 15' X15' deep test cell.
Phase I lasted several months, and more
than 99% of the TCE was successfully re-
moved from the soil.
In Phase Ila, which began operations in
the summer of 1996, a larger test cell was
treated. The cellmeasured21' X30' X45'
deep. Also, iron filings were utilized in the
treatment zones to dechlorinate TCE in
situ instead of just trapping it, as in Phase
I. During Phase Ila, it is believed that one
or more zones that contained
Figure 1. Schematic Diagram of Lasagna™ Installation at Paducah Gaseous
Diffusion Plant Shoving Electrodes (Anode and Cathode) and Treatment Zones.
Water Recycle by Gravity
Through 3/4" PVC pipe
Cathode
3/4" Steel Rod
as Primary
Electrodes
(6 each)
.7 ft __». ~*-5ft »-2 ft~*— 7ft •
3 Treatment Zones
unexpectedly large quantities of Dense
Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL)
were encountered. Because these very
high concentrations significantly slowed
the treatment process, it was decided to
extend the operations period of the
contract for six months. During the
extended period, the technology proved
effective in treating the heavy
concentrations of DNAPL, with most test
sample locations cleaning up either
below the required standard of 5.6 ppm or
only marginally above it before power
was shut down for soil sampling. EPA
and DOE concluded that Lasagna'™ had
once again demonstrated that it was an
effective technology for decontamination
of TCE in low-permeable soils, even
under heavy DNAPL conditions, which
had been a key project objective.
With the research and development
phase of the contract complete, DOE
sought regulatory approval to use the
Lasagna™ process for cleanup.
Licensing Opportunities
The Monsanto Company currently holds
two patents on the process and is offer-
ing Lasagna™ through license
agreements for treating soil at other loca-
tions contaminated with TCE or other
chlorinated aliphatic organics. Prospec-
tive licensees or owners of contaminated
sites may contact Dr. Sa V. Ho at
Monsanto, 314-469-5179,or Mr. John
Merz at Monsanto Enviro-Chem, 314-275-
5738.
Technical reports on the research, devel-
opment, and testing of the Lasagna™
process are available on the Partnership's
home page on the RTDF World Wide
Web site.
-------
RTDF Update
December 1998
IN SITU FLUSHING TEAM
Focus:
« NAPLs
• Solubilization/mobilization
• In ground water
In Situ Flushing Action
Team Meets
The In Situ Flushing Action Team held its
third meeting on September 14-15,1998, in
Dallas. Action Team Co-Chairs Dr. Lynn
Wood (EPA) and Steve Shoemaker
(DuPont) explained that the majority of
the agenda was devoted to working ses-
sions for the Subgroups established by
the Team earlier this year.
Technical Practices/Protocol and
Full-Scale Design Subgroup
Formerly separate subgroups on Techni-
cal Practices and Full-Scale Design were
consolidated. The new Subgroup will fo-
cus on preparing a technical guide on
surfactant and cosolvent flushing pro-
cesses and steps in designing a full-scale
in situ flushing system. In addition, the
Subgroup will establish linkages with on-
going full-scale flushing projects and
distribute information about them on the
Action Team's home page on the RTDF
World Wide Web site.
Subgroup members reviewed and revised
the outline for Volume I of the Technical
Guide. In general this volume will address
"What We Know Now" about in situ
flushing technology. Volume I will con-
tain eight sections: (1) Screening, (2)
Conceptual Approach, (3) Site Character-
ization, (4) General Evaluation Step, (5)
Design Processes, (6) Pilot-Scale Testing,
(7) Performance Assessment, and (8) Full-
Scale Design.
Volume II of the Technical Guide will fo-
cus on "What We Still Need To Do" and
will address such factors as technology
limitations, site characterization needs,
and design process issues, including het-
erogeneity, access limitations, surfactant
to the
@n Tscfenutoffies
Develupmest Forum
Web Site
recovery, and integration with other tech-
nologies in a "treatment tram." The
volume will be developed by a small
workgroup and will build on a base of in-
formation about laboratory-, pilot-, and
full-scale in situ flushing projects com-
piled by the Ground Water Remediation
Technologies Analysis Center
(G WRTAC) and released earlier this year.
Endpoint Assessment/Technical
Performance Criteria Subgroup
This Subgroup has three major objec-
tives: 1) develop guidelines for
establishing target endpoints for in situ
flushing technologies; 2) develop proto-
col/guidelines for predicting the ability to
(a) reach target endpoints and (b) identify
potential negative outcomes; and 3) de-
velop a framework for performance
assessment.
In order to move toward target endpoint
guidelines, the Subgroup drafted a letter
requesting regulatory guidance in defin-
ing target endpoints for in situ flushing
technologies. The letter contains a state-
ment of the problem and background
information on the use of in situ flushing
technologies, discusses possible ap-
proaches for defining target endpoints
other than using Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs), and offers recommenda-
tions of the most useful and meaningful
target endpoints to use for in situ flush-
ing technologies. The Subgroup currently
is refining the draft and circulating it for
review within the Action Team. When fi-
nalized, the letter will be sent to the
directors of EPA's Office of Research and
Development, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, and Technology In-
novation Office with the Action Team's
request for feedback within a specified
timeframe.
As an initial step in establishing a frame-
work for assessment of the performance
of in situ flushing, the Subgroup com-
piled a list of hydrogeological,
geochemical, and microbiologicalparam-
eters that should be monitored before,
during, and after use of the process and
identified measurement tools and "error
bars" for each. The Subgroup prepared a
table displaying these parameters and ad-
dressing when data should be collected
(before, during, or after), the importance
of the various data relative to determining
the success of an in situ flush, how the
data can be used (for design, process
control, success criteria, compliance
monitoring, etc.), and the matrix tested.
The Subgroup will circulate the draft table
for review and comment by Action Team
members before finalizing it.
Economic Assessment and
Remedial Agent Recovery/Reuse
Subgroup
This Subgroup's efforts are focused on
(1) determining the best way to perform
an economic analysis for in situ flushing
technologies and (2) comparing costs
against those generated by other types of
technologies. During its meeting, the Sub-
group compiled a list of contaminant
removal and surfactant reconcentration
technologies and discussed their status
and relative costs. The Subgroup's draft
-------
RTDF Update
December 1998
list is being circulated for review and com-
ment by all Action Team members.
Subgroup members also evaluated exist-
ing economic analyses. The Subgroup
found that many available and pending
economic analyses overestimate costs,
because they fail to account for recover-
ing and reusing surfactants, using an
incremental approach, and using skid-
mounted units and temporary piping.
Subgroup members plan to coordinate
with the Technical Practices/Protocol and
Full-Scale Design Subgroup to conduct
their own cost analysis for a full-scale de-
sign.
The Action Team received reports on ac-
tivities from several organizations with
common interests. Dr. David Ellis (DuPont
Specialty Chemicals) described the RTDF
Bioremediation Consortium's study of
natural attenuation of chlorinated sol-
vents and plans for future studies. In
addition, he discussed the potential ben-
efits of combining surfactant flushing and
natural attenuation in treatment trains.
Nancy Worst (Western Governors Asso-
ciation) summarized the activities of the
Interstate Technology Regulatory Coop-
eration (ITRC) Working Group, an
organization founded to remove the barri-
ers imposed by state agencies to the
development of innovative technologies.
She indicated that the ITRC is interested
in future collaboration with the In Situ
Flushing Action Team.
Dr. Thomas Early of the U.S. Department
of Energy' s (DOE) Oak Ridge National
Laboratory provided an update on the
Interagency Dense Non-Aqueous Phase
Liquid (DNAPL) Consortium'splanned
demonstration of innovative
technologies. The Consortium has
selected a site at Cape Canaveral to
demonstrate remediation of DNAPLs
using thermal technologies, in situ
chemical oxidation, and surfactant
flushing. Demonstrations are scheduled
for Spring 1999.
The meeting agenda also included brief-
ings on in situ flushing field work being
conducted at a number of sites through-
out the country. This information and a
summary of the proceedings of the meet-
ing are available on the Action Team's
home page on the RTDF World Wide
Web site.
The Action Team made tentative plans for
another meeting early in 1999.
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Publications Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
BULK RATE
Postage and Fees
Paid
EPA
Permit No. G-35
EPA 542-F-98-019
December 1998
------- |