United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Roberts. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada OK 74820
EPA/600/8-90/003
March 1990
Research and Development
&EPA
Basics of Pump-and-Treat
Ground-Water
Remediation Technology
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
EPA-600/8-90/003
Basics of Pump-and-Treat
Ground-Water Remediation Technology
James W. Mercer, David C. Skipp and Daniel Giffin
Geo Trans, Inc.
250-A Exchange Place
Herndon, Virginia 22070
Project Officer
Randall R. Ross
Extramural Activities and Assistance Division
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environment Protection Agency
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
Disclaimer
The Information in this document has been funded in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under Contract
No. 68-C8-0058 to Dynamac Corporation. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review, and it has been
approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
Foreword
EPA is charged by Congress to protect the nation's land, air and water systems. Under a mandate of national environmental
laws focused on air and water quality, solid waste management and the control of toxic substances, pesticides, noise and
radiation, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions which lead to a compatible balance between human
activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life.
The Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory is the Agency's center of expertise for investigation of the soil and
subsurface environment. Personnel at the Laboratory are responsible for management of research programs to: (a)
determine the fate, transport and transformation rates of pollutants in the soil, the unsaturated and the saturated zones of
the subsurface environment; (b) define the processes to be used in characterizing the soil and the subsurface environment
as a receptor of pollutants; (c) develop techniques for predicting the effect of pollutants on ground water, soil, and indigenous
organisms; and (d) define and demonstrate the applicability and limitations of using natural processes, indigenous to soil
and subsurface environment, for the protection of this resource.
The pump-and-treat process, whereby contaminated ground water is pumped to the surface for treatment, is one of the most
common ground-water remediation technologies used at hazardous waste sites. However, recent research has identified
complex chemical and physical interactions between contaminants and the subsurface media which may impose limitations
on the extraction part of the process. This report was developed to summarize the basic considerations necessary to
determine when, where, and how pump-and-treat technology can be used effectively to remediate ground-water
contamination.
Clinton W. Hall /s/
Director
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
Table of Contents
FOREWARD HI
FIGURES vi
TABLES vii
INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose of report 1
Format of report 1
OVERVIEW 1
DATA REQUIREMENTS 3
Hydrogeological data 3
Contaminant data 4
Data collection 7
Data interpretation 10
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 11
When to select pump-and-treat systems 11
Example of contaminant plume delineation and pump-and-treat implementation 13
Calculating the estimated cleanup time 14
Limitations of pump-and-treat systems 15
Design considerations 19
Determining well spacings, pumping rates, and time required for cleanups 19
Example of gasoline spill 22
OPERATION AND MONITORING 23
Remedial action objectives 23
Monitoring 23
Evaluation and modification of existing pump-and-treat systems 23
REFERENCES 25
GLOSSARY 29
APPENDIX A - Chemical Data A-1
APPENDIX B - Pump-and-Treat Applications B-1
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
List of Figures
Page
1. Example setting where a pump-and-treat system is used 2
2. Plan view of contaminant plume spreading by advection and dispersion (from Keely, 1989) 5
3. Trapped oil at residual saturation (from API, 1980) 7
4. Water-oil relative permeability versus water saturation 8
5. S-Area site, Niagara Falls, New York, showing proposed containment system 12
6a. Decision-flow diagram for ground-water contamination 12
6b. Decision-flow diagram for soil contamination 13
7. Effects of tailing on pumping time (from Keeley et al., 1989) 15
8. Liquid partitioning limitations of pump-and-treat effectiveness (from Keely, 1989) 17
9. Sorption limitations to pump-and-treat effectiveness (from Keely, 1989) 17
10. Effect of geologic stratification on tailing (from Keeley et al., 1989) 18
11. Calculated VOC inventory versus time (from Ward et al., (1987) 20
12. Calculated extraction well concentrations versus time (from Ward et al., 1987) 20
13. Simulation to capture front of the plume: 10 wells, 25 feet apart, pumping at 2 gpm each 21
14. Flowline pattern generated by an extraction well (from Keely, 1989) 24
15. Reduction of residual contaminant mass by pulsed pumping (from Keely, 1989) 24
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
List of Tables
Page
1. Aspects of site hydrogeology (U.S. EPA, 1988) 4
2. Data pertinent to ground-water contamination characterization (from Bouwer et al., 1988) 6
3. Potential sources of information (Knox et al., 1986) 8
4. Data collection methods (references provided in text) 9
5. Favorable and unfavorable conditions for pump-and-treat technologies 16
6. Phase distribution of gasoline in sand and gravel (Brown et al., 1988) 22
VII
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
Introduction
Purpose of report
A common means to contain and/or remediate
contaminated ground water is extracting the water and
treating it at the surface, which is referred to as pump-and-
treat technology. This report provides basic guidance on
how to use available hydrogeological and chemical data to
determine when, where, and how pump-and-treat
technology can be used successfully to contain and/or
remediate contaminant plumes. Ways to estimate the time
required to achieve a specific ground-water cleanup goal
also are discussed. Finally, the report addresses practical
limitations of pump-and-treat technology given certain
combinations of hydrogeological conditions and
geochemical properties. This report emphasizes the "pump"
portion of pump-and-treat technology. Estimated discharge
rates and concentration will affect the aboveground
treatment and associated costs. Treatment strategies and
policy questions are not discussed but can be found in U.S.
EPA (1987a) and U.S. EPA (1988a).
Pump-and-treat technology generally is considered at
hazardous waste sites where significant levels of
groundwater contamination exist. The report is written for
persons considering pump-and-treat technology as a
remedial alternative to contain and/or clean up a
ground-water contaminant plume. It is assumed that the
reader has some familiarity with basic concepts of
hydrogeology.
Format of report
The report is divided into four main sections: (1) Overview,
(2) Data Requirements, (3) Conceptual Design, and (4)
Operation and Monitoring. Examples and illustrations are
provided to convey concepts. In addition, a glossary
enables the reader to review the meaning of technical terms
introduced in the text. The first occurrence of terms listed in
the glossary is indicated by bold type. Because this report
only provides basic information and concepts on pump-and-
treat technology, references are provided for more detailed
information.
The first section provides an Overview of pump-and-treat
technology. Data Requirements identifies the
hydrogeological and contaminant data needed for chemical
transport analysis. Included are discussions of data
collection methods, data interpretation, and handling data
uncertainties.
Pump-and-treat technology for containment and cleanup is
discussed in Conceptual Design. Favorable and unfavorable
conditions for using a pump-and-treat system are outlined.
A discussion of chemical and hydrogeological properties
that affect the appropriateness of pump-and-treat
technology is presented. Methods to determine well
spacings, pumping rates, and cleanup time also are
discussed. Examples illustrate which contaminants and
hydrogeological environments can be treated successfully
with pump-and-treat technology and those for which pump-
and-treat systems need to be supplemented with other
remedial technologies.
The final section, Operation and Monitoring, emphasizes
the need for setting remedial action objectives and for
monitoring to ensure that these goals are attained. Once
the pump-and-treat system is implemented, adjustments
and modifications invariably will be required. Ways to
evaluate the pump-and-treat system are discussed along
with typical modifications.
Appendices provide (1) data on various chemicals that are
relevant to pump-and-treat systems and (2) a summary of
observations at sites where pump-and-treat technology has
been, or is presently being, used.
Overview
Sources of ground-water contamination can range from
leaky tanks, landfills, and spills, to the less obvious, such
as chemicals in the soil dissolving from nonaqueous phase
liquids (NAPLs) or chemicals desorbing from the soil
matrix. Several options can be used to attempt containment
and/or cleanup of ground-water contamination. First,
however, a distinction needs to be made between source
removal and the actual ground-water cleanup. Source
removal typically refers to excavation and removal of wastes
and/or contaminated soil. It also can include vacuum
extraction. Source containment includes chemical
fixation or physical encapsulation; if effective, it is similar
to source removal in that it eliminates the potential for
continued chemical transport from the waste source to
ground water. Groundwater containment/cleanup options
include physical containment (e.g., construction of
low-permeability walls and covers), in situ treatment (e.g.,
bioreclamation), and hydraulic containment/ cleanup (e.g.,
extraction wells and intercept trenches/drains). To effect
complete cleanup, several methods may be combined to
form a treatment train. This report focuses only on
hydraulic containment/ cleanup, in particular,
pump-and-treat technology.
In a pump-and-treat system used for cleanup, contaminated
ground water or mobile NAPLs are captured and pumped to
the surface for treatment. This requires locating the
ground-water contaminant plume or NAPLs in three
dimensional space, determining aquifer and chemical
properties, designing a capture system, and installing
extraction (and in some cases injection) wells. Monitoring
wells/piezometers used to check the effectiveness of the
pump-and-treat system are an integral component of the
system. Injection wells are used to enhance the extraction
system by flushing contaminants (including some in the
vadose zone) toward extraction wells or drains. A pump-
and-treat system may be used in combination with other
remedial actions, such as low-permeability walls to limit the
amount of clean water flowing to the extraction wells, thus
reducing the volume of water to be treated.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
1
-------
Figure 1 shows a pump-and-treat system operating at a
landfill in a typical hydrologic setting. In this case, an
injection well is used to increase the hydraulic gradient to
the extraction wells. This can increase the efficiency of the
extraction wells, reducing the time required to reach a
cleanup goal.
Pump-and-treat technology also can be used as a
hydraulic barrier to prevent off-site migration of
contaminant plumes from landfills or residual NAPLs. The
basic principle of a barrier well system is to lower
groundwater levels near a line of wells, thus diverting
groundwater flow toward the pumping wells.
Whether the objective of the pump-and-treat system is to
reduce concentrations of contaminants to an acceptable
level (cleanup), or to protect the subsurface from further
contamination (containment), the system components are:
• a set of goals or objectives,
• engineered components such as wells, pumps
and a treatment facility,
• operational rules and monitoring, and
• termination criteria.
Each of these components must be addressed in the
design and evaluation of a pump-and-treat technology.
Pump-and-treat technology is appropriate for many
groundwater contamination problems (Ziegler, 1989). The
physical-chemical subsurface system must allow the
contaminants to flow to the extraction wells. Consequently,
the subsurface must have sufficient hydraulic conductivity
(K) to allow fluid to flow readily and the chemicals must be
transportable by the fluid, thus making the use of
pump-and-treat systems highly site specific.
Cases in which contaminants cannot readily flow to
pumping wells include:
• Heterogeneous aquifer conditions where low
permeability zones restrict contaminant flow
toward extraction wells;
• Chemicals that are sorbed or precipitated on the
soil and slowly desorb or dissolve back into the
ground water as chemical equilibrium changes in
response to the extraction process; or
• Immobile nonaqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) that
may contribute to a miscible contaminant plume
by prolonged dissolution (e.g., a separate phase
gasoline at residual saturation).
In these cases, modifications to pump-and-treat technology,
such as pulsed pumping, may be appropriate. Pump-and-
OVERBURDEN SAND
=> -.
CLAY BEDROCK FLOW LINE
WATER TABLE
UNDER PUMPING
CONDITIONS
Figure 1. Example setting where a pump-and-treat system is used.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
treat technology also may be used in combination
(treatment train) with other remedial alternatives, such as
vacuum extraction and/or bioremedlatlon. One should
realize that no single technology is a panacea for
subsurface remediation under complex conditions.
The main limitation of pump-and-treat technology is the
long time that may be required to achieve an acceptable
level of cleanup. Other potential limitations include: (1) a
design that falls to contain the contaminant plume and
allows continued migration of contaminants either
horizontally or vertically and (2) operational failures that
allow the loss of containment. Typical operational
problems stem from the fallure(s) of surface equipment,
electrical and mechanical control systems, and chemical
precipitation causing lugging of wells, pumps, and surface
plumbing. Limitations are discussed further in Mackay and
Cherry (1989).
The problem of site remediation is complicated further if
the contaminants occur as NAPLs such as gasoline,
heating oil or jet fuel. In this case, some of the oily phase
becomes trapped in pore spaces by capillary forces and
cannot readily be pumped out. This residual saturation
can be a significant source of miscible contamination.
Unfortunately, the residual NAPL may not be detected by
a monitoring well because only the dissolved fraction is
present in the water withdrawn. Pump-and-treat removal is
rate-limited by how fast the NAPL components can
dissolve. Thus, for this situation, pump-and-treat removal
may need to be combined with other remedial alternatives
(e.g., vacuum extraction) that better address residual
saturation; and/or hydraulic containment rather than
cleanup may be the realistic remedial objective.
Data Requirements
A conceptual model of the nature and scope of a ground-
water contamination problem is needed before an
appropriate remedial action can be determined. Data
collection should be an iterative process performed in
phases where decisions concerning subsequent phases
are based on the results of preceding phases. This phased
approach need not lead to data collection being a
discontinuous process; data may well be collected
continuously with the decision resulting in modifications
in collection protocols. These decisions should consider
which final and/or interim remedial actions are to be
implemented. A history of the contamination events
should be prepared to define the types of waste and
quantify their loadings to the system. This is necessary
to help design the data collection program. The minimum
data required to make informed decisions depends on the
processes controlling contamination. These processes
and associated data are discussed below.
Hydrogeological data
One of the key elements affecting pump-and-treat system
design is the characterization of the ground-water flow
system. This includes: the physical parameters of the
contaminated region (e.g., hydraulic conductivity, storage
coefficient, and aquifer thickness); system stresses
(e.g., recharge and pumping rates); and other system
characteristics (e.g., physical and hydraulic boundaries
and ground-water flow directions and rates). For long-term
pumping, the storage coefficient is less significant than
the hydraulic conductivity. By understanding where
ground-water recharges and discharges (mass balance),
the laws governing flow (e.g., Darcy's Law), and the
geological framework through which this flow occurs, it is
possible to determine these characteristics. It is
important to portray the flow system accurately so the
impact of installing a pumping system can be properly
analyzed. Table 1 lists the information typically used to
identify and quantify the important characteristics of a
ground-water system. The methods for collecting these
data are discussed in a later section.
Because migrating miscible contaminants travel with
moving ground water, it is important to characterize
ground water flow. Groundwater flows from areas of
recharge (commonly via rainfall, surface water bodies, or
irrigation) to areas of discharge (surface water or wells).
Along the way, subsurface heterogeneities (such as
fractures) influence its direction. The rate of ground-water
flow is controlled by the porosity and hydraulic
conductivity of the media through which it travels and by
hydraulic gradients, which are influenced by recharge and
discharge (see Freeze and Cherry, 1979 or Fetter, 1980).
Pumping wells influence the flow system. If contamination
is detected in a water supply well, there has been a
tendency to close the well. This alters the flow system
and causes the contaminant's plume to migrate
elsewhere. Depending on the site, it may be
advantageous to install well-head treatment and keep the
well on-line to prevent further plume migration.
Conversely, it may be advantageous to close the well if it
is believed further pumping might exacerbate spreading of
the plume. This interim remedial action may be
consistent with and can become part of a final
pump-and-treat system.
It is important to conduct a site characterization quickly;
however, ground-water flow systems vary with time.
Seasonal variations in water levels, which are often
several feet, can adversely impact remediation. For
example, at one site, an intercept drain was constructed
to collect contaminated ground water but was designed
based on only one survey of water levels. Subsequent
monitoring revealed that the water levels represented a
seasonal high. Thus, for most of the year, the
ground-water intercept drain was above the water table
and did not collect the contaminated ground water.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
Table 1. Aspects of Site Hydrogeology (U.S. EPA, 1988).
Geologic Aspects
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Type of water-bearing unit or aquifer (overburden, bedrock)
Thickness, areal extent of water-bearing units and aquifers.
Type of porosity (primary, such as intergranular pore space, or secondary, such as
bedrock discontinuities, e.g., fracture or solution cavities)
Presence or absence of impermeable units or confining layers.
Depths to water table; thickness of vadose zone.
Hydraulic Aspects
1. Hydraulic properties of water-bearing unit or aquifer (hydraulic conductivity,
transmissivity, storativity, porosity, dispersivity).
2. Pressure conditions (confined, unconfined, leaky confined).
3. Ground-water flow directions (hydraulic gradients, both horizontal and vertical),
volumes (specific discharge), rate (average linear velocity).
4. Recharge and discharge areas.
5. Ground-water or surface water interactions; areas of ground-water discharge to
surface water.
6. Seasonal variations of ground-water conditions.
Ground-Water Use Aspects
1. Existing or potential underground sources of drinking water.
2. Existing or near-site use of ground water.
Contaminant data
Contaminant information includes: (1) source
characterization, (2) concentration distribution of
contamination and naturally occurring chemicals, and (3)
data associated with the processes that affect plume
development. Source characterization consists of the
following: (1) the chemical volume released, (2) the area
infiltrated, and (3) the time duration of release. Often, the
release occurred so long ago that information is difficult to
obtain.
Chemical data
Quantitative characterization of the subsurface chemistry
includes sampling the vadose and saturated zones to
determine the concentration distributions in ground water,
soil, and vadose water. Vadose zone monitoring is
discussed in Wilson (1981, 1982, 1983). A network of
monitoring wells (also necessary for the hydrogeologic
data) needs to be installed to collect depth-discrete
ground-water samples (U.S. EPA, 1986a). Wells should
be located in areas that will supply information on
ambient (background) ground-water chemistry and on
plume chemistry. At a minimum, soil and ground-water
samples should be analyzed for the parameters of
concern from the waste stream. A full priority pollutant
scan on the first round provides information on plume
chemistry and may be useful in differentiating plumes that
have originated from a different source. On subsequent
rounds, the parameter list may be tailored based on
site-specific considerations. For example, the list may
include chemicals exceeding environmental regulations
and those causing important chemical reactions that
affect the mobility of the contaminant or the
pump-and-treat system (e.g., compounds producing iron
precipitation in the surface plumbing due to oxidation).
After analyzing the samples, the resulting concentration
data should be mapped in three dimensions to determine
the spatial distribution of contamination. These plume
delineation maps and the results from aquifer tests will
yield estimates on plume movement and identify locations
for extraction wells.
Solute transport data
Plume movement of nonreactive dissolved contaminants
in saturated porous media is controlled primarily by
advection and, to a lesser extent, hydrodynamic
dispersion (Figure 2). Advection is a function of hydraulic
conductivity (the soil's resistance to flow) times the
hydraulic gradient (water-level changes with distance)
divided by porosity. Hydrodynamic dispersion is the
combined affect of mechanical mixing and molecular
diffusion. It is the apparent mixing due to unresolved
advective movement at scales finer than those described
by mean advection. Dispersion causes the
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
ADDITIONAL SPREADING CAUSED BY DISPERSION
TRAVEL BY ADVECTION
Figure 2. Plan view of contaminant plume spreading by advection and dispersion (from Keely, 1989).
zone of contaminated ground water to occupy a greater
volume than it would under advection only. Advection
causes a plume to move in the direction and at the rate of
ground-water flow; hydrodynamic dispersion causes the
plume volume to increase and its maximum concentration
to decrease.
Transport of reactive contaminants is influenced by
additional processes such as sorption, desorption, and
chemical or biochemical reactions. The data requirements
for contamination characterization are presented in Table
2. Sorption-desorption and transformation processes are
important in controlling the migration rate and
concentration distributions. Some of these processes
tend to retard the rate of contaminant migration and act
as mechanisms for concentration attenuation. Because of
their effects, the plume of a reactive contaminant expands
more slowly and the concentration is less than that of an
equivalent nonreactive contaminant. Unfortunately, this
retarding effect increases the cleanup time of a
pump-and-treat system.
Chemical properties of the plume are necessary (1) to
characterize the transport of the chemicals and (2) to
evaluate the feasibility of a pump-and-treat system. The
following properties influence the mobility of dissolved
chemicals in ground water and should be considered for
plume migration and cleanup:
1. Aqueous solubility: Determines the degree to which
the chemical will dissolve in water. Solubility
indicates maximum possible concentrations. High
solubility indicates low sorption tendencies, e.g.
methylene chloride.
2. Henry's Law constant: High values may signify
volatilization from the aqueous phase as an
important transport process, e.g.
dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12). Used in
conjunction with vapor pressure.
3. Density: For high concentrations, the density of the
contaminated fluid may be greater than the density of
pure water, e.g. trichloroethylene (TCE). This causes
the downward vertical movement of contaminants.
4. Octanol-water partition coefficient: Indicates a
chemical's tendency to partition between the ground
water and the soil. A large octanol-water partition
coefficient signifies a highly hydrophobic compound,
which indicates strong sorption, e.g. DDT. This
provides similar information to that provided by
solubility.
5. Organic carbon partition coefficient: Another indicator
of a chemical's tendency to partition
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
Table 2. Data pertinent to ground-water contamination characterization (from Bouwer et al.,
1988).
General Category
Specific Data
Site physical framework
Distributions
System stresses
Estimates of hydrodynamic dispersion parameters
Effective porositydistribution
Natural (background) aquifer constituent concentration
Fluid density and relationship to concentrations
Pollution source locations
Pollutant releases
Chemical/biological framework
Observable responses
Mineralogy
Organic content
Ground-water temperature
Solute properties
Major ion chemistry
Minor ion chemistry
Eh-pH environment
Areal and temporal distributions of water, solid, and vapor
phase contaminants
Stream flow quality distributions over space and time
6.
between ground water and the soil. For certain
chemicals, it is directly related to the distribution
coefficient Kd via the fraction of organic carbon (foe).
Biodegradabilitv: This provides information regarding
the persistence of the chemical and which, if any,
transformation products might be expected.
These parameters for many chemicals may be obtained
from references such as Lyman et al. (1982) or CRC
(1965). Some values are provided in Appendix A.
In addition to the data discussed above, other data may
need to be collected relating to (1) in situ biological
processes and (2) NAPL migration. For in situ biological
processes, the additional data needed may include: (1)
characterization of organisms in the subsurface, (2)
analysis for chemicals required for the biological process
to occur, and (3) analysis for potential transformation
products (degradation compounds). In situ biological
processes are important in order to estimate natural
degradation and to determine if bioreclamation (an
improved pump-and-treat method) is a possible remedial
alternative.
NAPL data
The presence of a separate nonaqueous phase greatly
complicates the contaminant characterization. Movement
of a contaminant as a separate, immiscible phase is not
well understood in either the saturated or unsaturated
zones. A nonaqueous phase moves in response to
pressure gradients and gravity. Its movement and, hence,
recovery, is influenced by interfacial tension and by the
processes of volatilization and dissolution.
The additional data requirements for NAPLs include: (1)
fluid specific gravity (density), (2) fluid viscosity, (3)
residual saturation, (4) relative permeability-saturation-
capillary pressure relationships, and (5) NAPL thickness
and distribution. Following a spill or release, light NAPLs
tend to spread over the water table. Dense nonaqueous
phase liquids (DNAPLs) tend to move below the water
table until reaching a low-permeability barrier, such as a
confining bed. Examples of DNAPLs include
1,1,1-trichloroethane, carbon tetrachloride,
pentachlorophenols, dichlorobenzene, tetrachloroethene,
and creosote; examples of LNAPLs include gasoline,
heating oil, kerosene, jet fuel, and aviation gas (see
Appendix A). Commonly, LNAPLs have a viscosity less
than water, and DNAPLs have a viscosity greater than
water (de Pastrovich et al., 1979). Following a spill, a
product of low viscosity will penetrate more rapidly into
the soil than a product with higher viscosity.
Residual saturation, also known as irreducible saturation,
is the saturation below which fluid drainage will not occur
(Figure 3). The residual saturation depends mainly on two
factors: (1) the distribution of soil pore sizes, and (2) the
type of immiscible fluid involved. Residual saturations are
difficult to estimate accurately and are subject to
considerable error.
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
WATER
FLUSHING
OR
PUMPING
FLUSHING WILL NOT REMOVE ALL OF THE TRAPPED PRODUCT
BECAUSE OF CAPILLARY ATTRACTION
Figure 3. Trapped oil at residual saturation (from API, 1980)
The residual saturation of hydrocarbons has important
consequences on soil cleanup, petroleum product
recovery, and ground-water contamination. As oil moves
through a soil, it leaves oil trapped at residual saturation.
The amount of oil retained in the soil is normally between
15 and 40 liters per cubic meter (Fussell at al., 1981).
According to API (1980), this trapped oil can last for
many years as the oil slowly degrades. While residual
saturation has the effect of depleting a plume of oil, thus
reducing the contamination impact of pure product
reaching and migrating within the saturated zone, it has
the detrimental effect of providing a long-term source of
miscible contaminants. For NAPLs subject to water-table
fluctuations, residual saturations can occur below the
water table. This has detrimental consequences for a
pump-and-treat system.
When more than one fluid exists in a porous medium, the
flowing fluids compete for pore space. The net result is
that the mobility is reduced for each fluid. The reduction
can be quantified by multiplying the intrinsic
permeability by a dimensionless ratio, known as relative
permeability, kr. Relative permeability is the ratio of the
effective permeability of a fluid at a fixed saturation to the
intrinsic permeability. Relative permeability varies from
zero to one and can be represented as a single-valued
function of phase saturation, S. An example of relative
permeabilities in a water-oil system is shown in Figure 4.
Note that at residual saturation, Sr the respective relative
permeability becomes zero; that is, flow ceases to occur
and product recovery stops.
Although relative permeability data are available for many
petroleum reservoir engineering applications, these data
are not generally available for liquids found at hazardous
waste sites. Data on water and trichlorethylene (TCE) are
the exception. Lin et al. (1982) made laboratory
measurements of pressure-saturation relations for
water-air and TCE-air systems in homogeneous sand
columns. These data were later converted to two-phase
saturation-relative permeability data by Abriola (1983).
Data collection
Conducting a background data search reduces the
amount of information that will have to be collected in the
field. As indicated above, chemical-specific information is
available in handbooks. Various sources of general
information on specific sites are available as shown in
Table 3. Other sources of information are listed in U.S.
EPA (1988b). Once the available data have been
reviewed, it is possible to design an approach to collect
the initial field data.
Subsurface conditions can be studied only by indirect
techniques or by using point data. Table 4 lists common
data collection methods. References on monitoring wells
include Scalf et al. (1981), Driscoll (1986), and Campbell
and Lehr (1973); references on geophysical techniques
include Dobrin (1976), Keys and MacCary (1971), Stewart
et al. (1983), and Kwader (1986). Choice of appropriate
methods depends on the overall scope of the project. A
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
Kr RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
(w-witw, o-oll)
Sw WATER SATURATION
Srw RESIDUAL WATER SATURATION
Sro RESIDUAL OIL SATURATION
Figure 4. Water-oil relative permeability versus water saturation.
Table 3. Potential sources of information (Knox et al., 1986).
Problem Specific:
Federal or state geological surveys, university libraries, geology and
engineering departments, state health departments, property owner,
county records, well drillers.
Site Specific:
Weather bureaus, state water resources boards, census bureaus, soil
and water conservation districts, employment commissions, corporation
commissions, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Other: Medical libraries, state or federal environmental protection agencies,
state attorney general's office.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
Table 4. Data collection methods (references provided in text).
Category
Commonly Used
Methods
Advantages/
Disadvantages
Geophysics
(Indirect data
method)
Electromagnetics
Resistivity
Seismic
Ground penetrating radar
Good for delineation of
high conductivity plumes
Useful in locating fractures
Limited use in shallow studies
Useful in very shallow soil
studies
Drilling
Augering
Augering with split-spoon sampling
Air/water rotary
Mud rotary
Coring
Jetting/driving
Poor stratigraphic data
Good soil samples
Rock sample information
Fills fractures - needs
intensive development
Complete details on bedrock
No subsurface data
Ground-Water
sampling
Bailer
Centrifugal pump
Peristaltic/bladder pumps
Allows escape of
volatiles (operator
dependent)
Can produce turbid samples
increasing chance of
misrepresented
contamination
Gives more representative
samples
Soil sampling
Soil boring
Restricted to shallow depths
Aquifer tests
Pump test
Slug test
Samples a large aquifer
section
Does not require liquid
disposal
conceptualization of the site and contamination problem
should be made and updated as data become available.
Throughout the study, it is essential to document all well
construction details, sampling episodes, etc., in order to
arrive at an accurate evaluation of the entire site. An
understanding of the hydrogeology and extent of
contamination are Important to a successful field study.
Formulating adequate design plans ensures that wells are
sited to a proper depth and stratigraphic layer so the extent
of contamination is not exacerbated by cross
contamination.
Methods for determining hydraulic properties of subsurface
units primarily consist of aquifer tests (e.g., pump tests or
slug tests). In a pump test, a well is pumped and water-
level responses are measured in surrounding wells.
Solutions are available for estimating aquifer parameters
based on the stress (pumping) and the response (drawdown
and recovery) (see, e.g., Ferris et al., 1962 or Kruseman
and De Ridder, 1976). The slug test method Involves
inducing a rapid water-level change within a well and
measuring the rate the water level in the well returns to its
initial level. The initial water-level change can be induced by
either introducing or withdrawing a volume of water or
displacement device into or out of the well. The rate of
recovery is related to the hydraulic conductivity of the
surrounding aquifer material (Cooper et al., 1967;
Papadopulos et al., 1973; Bouwer and Rice, 1976). The
advantage of a slug test (unlike a pump test) is that little or
no contaminated water will be produced. Unfortunately, slug
tests measure the response in only a small volume of the
permeable media, whereas aquifer tests measure the
response in a much larger volume. More recently, the
borehole flowmeter has been used to examine the spatial
variability of hydraulic conductivity (see, e.g., EPRI, 1989).
To determine flow directions and vertical and horizontal
gradients, water levels must be measured and converted to
elevations relative to a datum, usually mean sea level.
Water-level measurements may be taken by several
different means including (1) chalk and tape, (2) electrical
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
water-level probe, and (3) pressure transducer. These
techniques are discussed in Acker (1974) and Streltsova
(1988). Horizontal gradients are determined using water-
level data from wells that are open to the same hydrologic
unit and/or at the same elevation but separated areally.
Vertical gradients are determined using water-level data
from wells in the same location but open to different
elevations. The gradient is the difference in water levels
divided by the distance between the measurement
locations. Because water levels often yield a complex
three-dimensional surface, care must be taken in computing
the hydraulic gradient. The gradient determines the direction
of flow. Ground-water velocity is determined by multiplying
the gradient by hydraulic conductivity and dividing by
effective porosity.
For fractured media and karst formations, site
characterization and remediation designs are even more
difficult. Techniques such as fracture trace analysis
(Lattman and Parizek, 1964) and the use of geophysical
instrumentation may be useful for locating the more
permeable zones, where contaminants are most likely to be
located and, thus, where extraction wells should be placed.
Other characterization techniques include continuous
coring, aquifer tests, and tracer tests (IAHS, 1988). For
more detailed discussion on flow in the special
heterogeneous conditions of fractured media, see Streltsova
(1988); for karst formations, see Bb'gli (1980), IAHS (1988),
and Quinlan and Ewers (1985).
To ensure proper quality assurance (QA) and quality control
(QC) of ground-water samples, strict protocols must be
followed in the field. The pH, temperature, and specific
conductance of a sample should be measured. Ideally,
before a sample is gathered, water should be extracted from
the well until these parameters have stabilized. This will
help ensure that the sample is from the formation. Proper
sample storage and shipment to a qualified laboratory is
also important. A sampling plan should address issues
such as sampling frequency, locations, and statistical
relevance of samples (U.S. EPA, 1987b). For more details
on sampling guidance, see Cartwright and Shafer (1987),
Barcelona et al. (1983), and Barcelona et al. (1985). For
methods to determine partition coefficients from cores, see
Sundstrom and Kiel (1979); for NAPL characterization, see
API (1989).
Data interpretation
Uncertainties associated with hazardous waste problems
include: (1) contaminant source characterization and (2)
extrapolating/ interpolating subsurface point data.
Interpretation of point data begins by plotting the data and
viewing it from different perspectives. For example, water-
level data for specific times should be contoured to form
potentiometric maps that are interpreted with respect to
geologic sections and information on hydraulic conductivity.
For a steady flow system, a region of higher hydraulic
gradient on the potentiometric maps should correspond to a
region of lower hydraulic conductivity on the geologic
section. Further graphical interpretation should be made
using contaminant plume maps. Plume development in the
down-hydraulic-gradient direction should be noted. Different
data types should be used to support other data so a
conceptualization can be developed that is consistent with
all data.
For example, consider a site involving heavy metal
contamination where the aquifer consists of a permeable
alluvium overlying a low permeability saprolite that is above
permeable weathered bedrock. Concentration data plotted
on a map of the area shows an irregular shape difficult to
interpret, but that appears to indicate a limited and
disconnected contamination problem, suggesting multiple
plumes. However, looking at well construction data reveals
a different picture. Wells constructed in the alluvium and
weathered bedrock show contamination while those
constructed in the low-permeability saprolite do not.
Absence of contamination in the saprolite wells does not
indicate a clean section; it only indicates that the
contamination in that section has not penetrated the
low-permeability saprolite. Reexamination of these data
reveals that the contamination probably consists of a plume
in each permeable layer that is more extensive than was
thought originally when examining only a single
concentration map and zero values for the saprolite wells.
The original interpretation was made without considering
stratigraphic effects on the three-dimensional flow system.
This emphasizes the importance of examining all data,
including well construction information, when characterizing
contamination and designing a remediation.
The next step in data interpretation is making scoping
calculations such as using the hydraulic gradient, hydraulic
conductivity, and porosity in Darcy's equation to estimate
convective transport. Next, one may compare these velocity
calculations with estimates of mean plume movement. If the
two are not comparable, this could indicate uncertainty in
the source release or location or that processes such as
sorption or transformation are important. Inconsistences
among data need to be explained. Resolving data
inconsistencies assures an understanding of the site and
reduces uncertainty.
There are numerous tools that can be used to interpret
data, including:
Geochemical analysis - Methods such as ion-
association models can be used to interpret chemical
changes in the aquifer. Representative models include
MINEQL (Morel and Morgan, 1972), WATEQ2 (Ball et
al., 1979), EQ3 (Wolery, 1979), and MINTEQA1 (U.S.
EPA, 1987b).
Geostatistical analysis - Methods such as kriging can
be used to quantify the spatial variability inherent in the
hydraulic conductivity field of an aquifer (see, e.g.,
Journal, 1978 or Englund and Sparks, 1988). For
uncertainty, kriging provides confidence intervals for the
parameter of interest (Cooper and Istok, 1988a and b).
Statistical methods may be used to determine the
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
10
-------
relationship among various parameters and help define
the statistical likelihood of a particular occurrence
(Davis, 1973 and Gilbert, 1987).
Mathematical modeling - Models such as the
three-dimensional, finite-difference flow code MODFLOW
(McDonald and Harbaugh, 1984) and the semianalytical
flow code RESSQ (Javandel et al., 1984) can be used to
simulate flow patterns and changes resulting from the
operation of a pump-and-treat system. Other models are
available to analyze contamiant transport (see, e.g., van
der Heijde et al., 1985 or U.S. EPA, 1988c). To address
uncertainty, one may use discrete sensitivity analysis
where a parameter is varied and its impact on the
concentration is assessed.
Parameter uncertainties are a consequence of the
estimation procedure and spatial and temporal variability in
model parameters. Various techniques are available to
handle the effects of parameter uncertainty in ground-water
flow. These techniques can be divided into two broad
categories: full distribution analyses, and first and second
moment analyses (Dettinger and Wilson, 1981). Full
distribution analyses require a complete specification of the
probability functions (pdfs) of the random variables or
parameters. These pdfs are either known or assumed. The
most common full distribution techniques are the method of
derived distributions (Benjamin and Cornell, 1970), the
Monte Carlo method (Kalos and Whitlock, 1986) and the
Latin hypercube method (Iman and Shortencarier, 1984).
Conceptual Design
Because of complex site conditions, it may be necessary
to combine remedial actions into a treatment train.
Choosing a remedial technology is a function of the
contaminant and its reactivity and mobility, characteristics
of the site (e.g., hydraulic conductivity), and the location of
the contaminant (e.g., above or below the water table). The
ease with which the contaminant moves through the
subsurface determines how extensive and how difficult it will
be to remediate the contamination problem. For example, a
formation must have sufficient hydraulic conductivity to
allow pumpage. If a shallow aquifer is very tight (low
hydraulic conductivity), pumping at a reasonable rate may
cause the well to go dry, creating a capture zone that is too
limited. For such conditions, an intercept drain may be
more appropriate. The reactivity of a contaminant, either
chemically or biologically and its ultimate fate determine
whether an in situ treatment process can be used or
whether containment or physical removal is more effective. If
a volatile compound, such as gasoline, is above the water
table, pumping (or skimming) may recover the petroleum
product, but will leave a residual product that a vacuum
extraction (soil venting) system might recover. Thus,
pump-and-treat technology may be combined with other
technologies to complete remediation in the saturated and
vadose zones.
Pump-and-treat technology is appropriate for many
hydrogeological conditions, waste types, and chemical
properties. It may be necessary, however, to combine a
pump-and treat system with other technologies (e.g.,
bioreclamation, soil venting) or to make system
adjustments (e.g., pulsed pumping). It is important to be
aware of the time frames that may be required to achieve a
particular remedial objective (cleanup goal) before deciding
on a pump-and-treat remediation.
There may be situations where pump-and-treat technology
will not effectively remove contaminants. An example is
dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) at residual
saturation. Unfortunately, this is a very difficult problem for
which other remedial options may not be effective either. If
the residual DNAPLs are shallow, then excavation may be a
reasonable option. If they are too deep to excavate, then
pump-and-treat technology is a possible remedial action to
hydraulically contain any dissolved contamination.
Containment may be required until a technology is
developed (e.g., enhanced oil recovery methods) that can
treat or remove the DNAPLs. An area where containment is
being implemented is the S-Area site in Niagara Falls, New
York (Cohen et al., 1987). Here, a combination of physical
and hydraulic barriers was proposed to contain DNAPLs
(Figure 5). When containment is selected, seasonal or
transient ground-water flow conditions must be considered
to insure year-round containment.
One way to evaluate the effectiveness of a remediation is
through a study a case histories. Lindorff and Cartwright
(1977) discuss 116 case histories of ground-water
contamination and remediation. U.S. EPA (1984a and b)
presents 23 case histories of ground-water remediation.
More recently (U.S. EPA, 1989), ground-water extraction
has been evaluated via case histories. The results of this
latter study are summarized in Appendix B.
When to select pump-and-treat systems
Figures 6a and 6b present decision-flow diagrams for
ground-water contamination and soil contamination,
respectively. For ground-water contamination, the first
decision concerns whether a remedial action (G3) is
necessary. If a risk assessment shows the need for a
remedial action, then the options shown in Figure 6a are
containment (G4), in situ treatment (G5) or pump and treat
(G6). If G5 is selected, then other decisions are necessary
but not discussed here. If G4 is selected, then the
containment can be either physical (G7) or hydraulic (G8).
Physical containment has generally not worked well
(Mercer et al., 1987) and is not discussed further; hydraulic
containment is achieved by pump-and-treat technologies
(G11). As indicated previously, if the source of the
ground-water contamination is not removed, then
containment may be necessary as opposed to G5 or G6.
If pump and treat (G6) is selected, the next decision is
whether to use wells (G9) or drains (G10). If the hydraulic
conductivity is sufficiently high to allow flow to wells, then
select wells. For low-permeability material, drains may be
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
11
-------
Before
u RAIN o
„„
QW*
LEAKAGE THRU
CLAY & TILL 4J"
/ / s / /
RAI
LAGOON LEAKS | 1
/\,.J - T. — I'liri-rA 4 '•
-^. U:f. .• 'tr v_
r. ^ jii,
• ' it-
BEDROCK WATER LEVEL
QW t NAPL
•V A
^'"••^-' /' i 'y / '-"?' '">'• ' ,
N
41 ;
^f
/ '/ f /—
After
CLAY CAP — ^
— e~~7)_'' — ' - -
^T 1r\ DBAIN
QW<* U.**LL Vy.
"*v
UPWARD LEAKAGE ,
'. ' ••$
'/ ' J 7 7-^-^ S
/ / S /
\
I
if
• /*
s
/'• '^^-
WALL DR*'^
t ..
fr, *
— r* y / ~*T — ^
s /
t
•J
/•
> — ^
-
o
3
WALL:
X
•"•
4
—t. — <
•S.
T
, if
Figure 5. S-Area site, Niagara Falls, New York, showing proposed containment system.
G16
G1
G2
Figure 6a. Decision-flow diagram for ground-water contamination.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
12
-------
S2
S1
Figure 6b. Decision-flow diagram for soil contamination.
required. After wells have been selected, a decision must
be made concerning whether they are extraction wells
(G12), injection wells (G13), or a combination. Injection
wells will reduce the cleanup time by flushing
contaminants toward the extraction wells. For the
extraction wells, decisions need to be made concerning
continuous pumping (G16), pulsed pumping (G17), and/or
pumping combined with containment. Continuous
pumping maintains an inward hydraulic gradient; pulsed
pumping allows maximum concentrations to be extracted
efficiently; containment can be used to limit the inflow of
clean water that needs to be treated. The injected water
can be treated water (G19); for biodegradable
contaminants, it can contain nutrients and/or electron
acceptors (G20) to enhance in situ biodegradation; or,
for NAPLs, it can consist of enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
materials (G21). For further information on EOR
techniques, see Shah (1981). For problems involving
ground-water contamination, some form of pump-and-treat
technology will almost always be used.
A similar decision process can be followed for soil
contamination (Figure 6b). The first decision is no
action/remedial action. For a remedial action, the choices
are excavation (S4), in situ treatment (S5), and/or
cap/cover (S6). For in situ treatment, the options are
fixation (S7), vacuum extraction (S8), thermal (S9), or
bioremediation (S10). Vacuum extraction is possible if the
contaminants are volatile. Other options may be available;
however, soil cleanup is not the emphasis here and,
therefore, is not given greater discussion. Most
contamination problems will impact both soil and
ground water. For such problems, a combination, e.g., G6
and S8, of options may be required to achieve cleanup.
Example of contaminant plume delineation
and pump-and-treat implementation
This example is based on a study at a facility that uses
many solvents that are potential pollutants. No previous
site-specific studies had been conducted; hence, the
existence and extent of contamination were unknown.
The investigative work was performed in three phases.
Phase 1
During Phase 1, an evaluation was made of the site
hydrogeology and ground-water quality. Regional studies
were obtained from the state geological survey, the local
water authority, and Soil Conservation Service; prior
construction information was obtained from the company.
A list of all onsite potential contaminant sources was
prepared. Potential preferred flow paths were identified by
performing a fracture trace analysis (see, e.g., Lattman
and Parizek, 1964) using aerial photographs of the site.
Water levels from existing wells on-site and just off-site
were used to develop preliminary ground-water flow
directions.
The site geology consists of overburden underlain by
interbedded sandstones, siltstones, and shales.
Groundwater flow was concentrated in linear fracture
zones. The
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
13
-------
hydrogeologic system consisted of two aquifers: a
confined zone about 400 feet deep and an upper
semiconfined zone from the surface to a depth of 200
feet. Flow directions in the deep zone could not be
determined. Ground-water levels revealed that flow was
toward the northwest (in a direction toward a local water
supply well) in the shallow zone. Using this information
and the geologica/hydrogeologic framework, monitoring
well locations were sited in flow paths that might contain
contamination. Initially, three monitoring wells were
installed downgradlent of suspected source areas and an
existing well was used for upgradient information. Off-site
and on-site wells in the deep aquifer showed no signs of
contamination; however, moderate concentrations of the
solvents trichloroethene (TCE) and tetrachloroethene
(POE) were found in a limited portion of the shallow zone.
Phase 2
After identifying an area of contamination, a soil gas
survey (see, e.g., Marrin and Thompson, 1984) was
performed to determine if the source of contamination still
existed. The soil gas survey revealed concentrated levels
of PCE and TCE in a limited area of the overburden. Soil
contamination was verified through a soil sampling
program. The contaminated soil was removed and
replaced with clean fill. Additional monitoring wells were
installed to define the plume boundaries and to provide
water quality data. These data were used to determine
the areal and vertical extent of the contaminant plume,
which appeared to be limited in extent and confined to the
top portion of the upper aquifer. To account for seasonal
variations, the wells were monitored for approximately six
more months. At the end of that time, the third phase was
initiated.
Phase 3
Water quality and water-level monitoring showed that
removing the contaminated soils probably eliminated the
source of the contamination. That is, the plume rate of
movement was very slow with decreasing concentration
with time. The concern was the movement of dissolved
TCE and PCE in the ground water. Therefore, for this
phase of field work, a series of slug and pump tests were
conducted.
The slug test data provided estimates of the hydraulic
conductivity of the aquifer immediately adjacent to the
boreholes. Pump tests were conducted using
downgradient wells in high-hydraulic conductivity zones
(based on slug tests) to determine their areas of
influence. The tests were analyzed to determine hydraulic
conductivity. Hydraulic conductivities and porosity
estimates, along with the water-level data, were used to
determine convective plume movement. Using these
analyses and data on the geologic/ hydrogeologilc
framework, a pump-and-treat system was selected where:
1. Locations of two extraction wells maximizing capture
of the plume horizontally and vertically were chosen.
2. The most efficient pumping rate of 20 gpm was
determined.
3. Pumping would not impact any off-site facility or well.
4. The location for injection of the treated water was
chosen to complement the pumping system.
A three-year time frame was estimated to reduce the
aquifer contamination to acceptable levels based on
advective calculations. During this period, water quality
and flow analysis continued on a quarterly basis to
ensure cleanup. The pumping system derived the majority
of its flow from the fracture system. Once pumping was
terminated, residual contamination remained in the
overlying sediments that could migrate into the cleaned
region. Therefore, monitoring was continued to verify
cleanup.
A phased approach provided time to refine data collection
techniques and concepts of the mechanisms/processes
controlling contaminant migration. The slow-moving plume
allowed time for adequate study. At the end of each
phase, there were sufficient data to make decisions
concerning the next phase. Pump-and-treat remediation
was appropriate for this case and was efficient only after a
substantial portion of the source (contaminated soil) was
removed.
Calculating the estimated cleanup time
The following example illustrates a simple method used to
estimate the time required to achieve cleanup (Hall,
1988). Assume that an area of ground-water
contamination is ten acres; the aquifer is permeable and
is 55 ft thick; water in storage amounts to 30% of the
aquifer's volume; and the water is contaminated with a
nonreactive solute. Under these conditions, it would be
possible, with a properly designed pump-and-treat
system, to exchange one pore volume of water in this
ten-acre plume in about a year with a pumping rate of 100
gal/min:
volume of contaminant=
10 acres x 43,560 ft2/acre x 55 ft x 7.48 gal/ft3 x 0.3 = 5.4 x 107
gallons.
Pumping rate to remove this volume in one year = 5.4 x
107 gallons/365 days/1440 min/day = 102 gallons per
minute.
In reality, however, it will be necessary to pump longer
than one year to reach an acceptable concentration due
to the "tailing" effect often observed with this remedial
action. Tailing is the asymptotic decrease of contaminant
concentration in water that is removed in the cleanup
process (Figure 7). Compared to ideal removal, tailing
requires longer pumping times and greater volumes
pumped to reach a specific cleanup concentration goal.
Tailing may be caused by several phenomena. For
example, a highly-soluble and mobile contaminant can
migrate into less-permeable zones of the geologic
material. Here it will slowly exchange with the bulk water
flowing in the more-permeable zones and will be removed
less readily. As a result, it will be necessary to pump
ground water that was
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
14
-------
< o
flC £
UJ g
O S
§!
UJ £
Ul
DC
REMOVAL WITH TAILING
THEORETICAL REMOVAL
£ 0.5 -
WATER FILLED AQUIFER VOLUMES
Figure 7. Effects of tailing on pumping time (from Keeley et al., 1989).
originally outside the chemical plume to complete aquifer
cleanup.
For a reactive sorbing compound, the time required to
remove the contaminant by pumping is increased.
Consider the previous and following examples (Hall,
1988). The contaminated area is 10 acres (660 ft by 660
ft). If the aquifer is 55 feet thick and ground-water flow is
from one side of the contaminated zone to the other with
a volume discharge of 100 gpm and a porosity of 0.3, then
the interstitial velocity of the water would be
approximately:
100 gal/min x 1440 min/day x 1 fP/7.48 gal x 365 days/year •*•
(660 ft x 55 ft x 0.3) = 645 ft/yr.
Hence, it will take water approximately one year to travel
through the contaminated area.
If the bulk density of the soil is 100 Ib/ft3, the density of
water is 62.4 Ib/ft3, and the linear soil partition
coefficient is 0.75 (ratio of mass concentration on solid
phase to mass concentration in the aqueous phase), then
the time for the contaminant to traverse the same
distance is calculated from:
contaminant velocity = water velocity/retardation factor
retardation factor =
1 + [soil partition coef. x soil bulk density/(water density x porosity)]
Thus, the contaminant would travel at 129 ft/year and
would take five years to traverse the length of the
contaminated area. The cleanup time is thus increased
because of the slower contaminant movement toward the
extraction wells. In addition, the tailing effect is amplified
due to desorption. That is, as the ground-water plume is
reduced in concentration as a result of pumping, the
contaminant will desorb from the soil and maintain the
ratio of the partition coefficient.
Limitations of pump-and-treat systems
Anytime extensive ground-water contamination exists,
pump-and-treat systems should be considered; they
should be accepted, rejected, or combined with other
remedial technologies based on a site-specific analysis.
Pump-and-treat systems may be the only option when
deep ground-water contamination exists. Properly
designed and accurately located extraction wells are
effective for containing and/or remediating ground-water
contamination, but have limitations. For many
contaminants, reducing ground-water concentrations to
Safe Drinking Water Act or Land Disposal Restriction
standards is a difficult task. Favorable and unfavorable
conditions for the application of pump-and-treat
technology are listed in Table 5.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
15
-------
Table 5. Favorable and unfavorable conditions for pump-and-treat technologies.
Favorable Conditions
Unfavorable Conditions
Source removed
Mobile chemicals
High hydraulic conductivity
(e.g., K>10'5cm/s)
Homogeneous
SOURCE TERM
NAPLs at residual saturation
CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
Chemicals sorbed or precipitated
HYDROGEOLOGY
Very low hydraulic conductivity
(e.g., K<10'7cm/s)
Highly heterogeneous
Limitations due to NAPLs
For pump-and-treat technology to remediate an aquifer in
a timely fashion, the contaminant source must be
eliminated. This is because unremoved contaminants will
continue to be added to the ground-water system,
prolonging cleanup. Excavation is one of several options
available for source removal. NAPLs at residual saturation
are one of the more difficult sources of ground-water
contamination with which to deal. Of particular difficulty
are substances such as halogenated aliphatic
hydrocarbons, halogenated benzenes, phthalate esters
and polychlorinated biphenyls which, in their pure form,
are DNAPLS. When NAPLs are trapped in pores by
interfacial tension, diffusive liquid-liquid partitioning
controls dissolution. Flow rates during remediation may
be too rapid to allow aqueous saturation levels of
partitioned contaminants to be reached locally (see
Figure 8). If insufficient contact time is allowed, the
affected water may be advected away from the residual
NAPLs before approaching chemical equilibrium and is
replaced by water from upgradient. Because ground-water
extraction is not generally efficient at cleaning up this
type of source, some other remedial action may be
required.
DNAPL example
Consider a 1 m3 volume of sandy soil with a residual
DNAPL content of 30 L/m3. For this example,
ground-water flows through the soil at a rate of 0.03 m/d,
typical of ground-water conditions in a sandy soil (based
on a hydraulic conductivity of 10"3 cm/s, a hydraulic
gradient of 1% and a porosity of 30%). Furthermore, it is
assumed that DNAPLs dissolve into the ground water to
10% of their solubility. For trichloroethene (density of 1.47
g/cm"3 and solubility of 1,100 mg/L), approximately 122
years would be required to dissolve the DNAPLs:
mass to be dissolved =
(30 L/m3)(1 m3) (1.47 g/crrP) (100 cm/m)3 (1x10'3 m3/L) = 44,100 g
concentration of solute = (10%) (1,100 mg/L) = 110 mg/L
mass flux through 1 m2 area =
(0.03 m/d) (1 m2) (110mg/L (10'3 g/mg) (103L/m3) (0.3) = 0.99 g/d
time required to dissolve =
(44,100 g) •*• (0.99 g/d) = 44,545 d - (365 d/y) = 122 y
These calculations indicate that the time DNAPL
chemicals can potentially remain in the subsurface is
measured in years to decades or more under natural
ground-water flow conditions.
Limitations due to sorption
As discussed previously and shown in Table 5, mobile
chemicals may be treated using pump-and-treat
technology. For sorbing compounds, however, the number
of pore volumes that will need to be removed depends on
the sorptive tendencies of the contaminant and the
geologic materials through which it flows, as well as the
groundwater flow velocities during remediation. If the
velocities are too rapid to allow contaminant levels to build
up to equilibrium concentrations locally (see Figure 9),
then the affected water may be advected away before
approaching equilibrium. Efficiency in contaminant
removal may be low and will tend to decrease with each
pore volume removed.
For linear sorption, a distribution coefficient can be
defined for many chemicals. This may be used to define a
retardation factor as:
retardation factor = 1 + [distribution coefficient x bulk density •*• porosity}
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
16
-------
LIQUID: LIQUID
PARTITIONING
Z
o
cc
I-
z
LU
O
Z
o
o
GROUNDWATER VELOCITY
Figure 8. Liquid partitioning limitations of pump-and-treat effectiveness (from Keely, 1989)
ORGANIC CARBON OR
MINERAL OXIDE SURFACE
ADVECTION
EQUILIBRIUM CONCENTRATION
INITIAL RAPID
DESORPTION
TIME —+-
Figure 9. Sorption limitations to pump-and-treat effectiveness (from Keely, 1989)
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
17
-------
The retardation factor indicates the speed of a
contaminant relative to the water velocity. For example,
dissolved tetrachloroethene (PCE) was found to have a
distribution coefficient of 0.2 ml/g in a porous medium
with a bulk density of 1.65 g/cm3 and a porosity of 0.25.
Using the above formula, the velocity of the PCE is
approximately 40% of the water flow through the same
porous media. Thus, sorption retards the movement of
PCE. Unfortunately for pump-and-treat remediation,
sorption increases the time of cleanup. As indicated in a
later example, an almost linear relationship exists
between retardation and time of remediation for a specific
cleanup level. For example, for PCE, it would take 40%
longer to reach a cleanup goal compared to the cleanup
time for a nonsorbed compound. This assumes no
degradation.
Limitations due to low hydraulic conductivity
The hydrogeological conditions favorable to
pump-and-treat technology are high hydraulic conductivity
(greater than about 10"5 cm/s) and homogeneity.
Unfavorable conditions include very low hydraulic
conductivity and significant heterogeneity. If the hydraulic
conductivity is too low (less than about 10'7 cm/s) to allow
a sustained yield to a well,
ground-water extraction via pumping wells is not feasible.
Determining pump-and-treat feasibility is site specific; a
hydraulic conductivity range that works at one site may
not work at another site. For example, if the plume is
small and the natural hydraulic gradient is low, a
pump-and-treat system pumping at a very low rate in a
low hydraulic conductivity unit may be feasible. However,
this same hydraulic conductivity may result in
containment failure at another site.
For heterogeneous conditions (Figure 10), advected water
will sweep through zones of higher hydraulic conductivity,
removing contamination from those zones. Although
heterogeneous conditions only are illustrated in the
vertical in Figure 10, they are generally a three-
dimensional phenomenon. Movement of contaminants out
of the low hydraulic conductivity zones is a slower
process than advective transport in the higher hydraulic
conductivity zones. The contaminants either are slowly
exchanged by diffusion with the flowing water present in
larger pores or move at relatively slower velocities in the
smaller pores. A rule of thumb is that the longer the site
has been contaminated and the more lenticular (layered)
the geologic material, the longer will be the tailing effect.
The water and
ci. AYjagiEs
- >.•»•.••;•.••.• '••'-••'•-'•;'•..•.';•'
-.*- V •••
CLAY —
V £ v >:/.:.:}::: -SAND : v:
:TIGHT CLAY;
AVERAGE VELOCITY
CONVECTION
"J)JFFUSON~
CONVECTION
DIFFUSION
CONVECTION
DIFFUSION & CONVECTION
DIFFUSION
VERTICAL SECTION
THROUGH AQUIFER
VELOCITY
PROFILE
DOMINANT
FLOW PROCESS
Figure 10. Effect of geologic stratification on tailing (from Keeley et al., 1989).
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
18
-------
contaminants residing in the more permeable zones are those
first mobilized during pumping. Thus, pump-and-treat
technologies work in heterogeneous media, but cleanup times
will be longer and more difficult to estimate than for similar
systems in more homogeneous media.
Design considerations
In designing a pump-and-treat system, there are many
practical aspects that must be considered including: (1)
wells, (2) pumps, and (3) piping. Methods of drilling, well
design, and construction are discussed in Driscoll (1986),
whereas well construction effects such as partial penetration,
partial screening, and incomplete development are discussed
inKeely(1984).
When dealing with NAPLs, special care is required to avoid
capillary barrier problems in the well construction materials.
Iron or manganese may oxidize and cause clogging. Wells
should be designed for ease of flushing screens and treating
clogging problems. A long-term aquifer test (greater than
several days) provides useful information and can serve as a
prototype before the main pump-and-treat system is
designed. Pumps are also discussed in Driscoll (1986);
consideration should include failure rates, reaction to
contaminants, and ease of maintenance. Back-up pumps
should be available in the event of pump failure. For pipelines,
clogging and freezing problems should be considered, as well
as techniques for monitoring flow rates (e.g., flow meters). Be
conservative when sizing pipes and the treatment system in
case increased pumpage is required. Include provisions for
insulation of piping to prevent freezing, particularly for
systems with intermittent operation. Although these aspects
of pump-and-treat design are important, the emphasis here is
on analysis techniques for performing site-specific evaluation.
Determining well spacings, pumping rates, and
time required for cleanups
At many sites, it is advantageous to have multiple extraction
wells pumping at small rates versus one well pumping at a
large rate. Analytical or numerical modeling techniques are
used to evaluate alternative designs and help determine
optimal well spacings, pumping rates, and cleanup times
(see, e.g., U.S. EPA, 1985). For example, a generic modeling
study examining the effectiveness of various restoration
schemes is presented in Satkin and Bedient (1988). There
also are approaches combining groundwater models with
linear and nonlinear optimization (see e.g., Gorelick et al.,
1984). Fluid pathlines and travel times in ground-water
systems also can be estimated from particle tracking codes
(see e.g., Shafer, 1987). In addition, there are numerous
analytical solutions that may be used to estimate pumping
rates and well spacings once aquifer properties are known.
These solutions are included in Ferris et al. (1962), Bentall
(1963), Walton (1970), and Jacob (1950). In the following
examples, both numerical and analytical models were used to
estimate well spacings, pumping rates, and cleanup times.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
Using a numerical model
A proposed pump-and-treat system for a hazardous
waste site was evaluated using a numerical model and is
described by Ward et al. (1987). The goal of the pump-
and-treat system was to contain and clean up
contamination. The results of the transport simulations
are summarized in Figure 11. This figure shows the
distribution inventory of the mass of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) at the site over time. At any given
time, the initial VOC mass can be distributed in three
categories: (1) mass remaining in ground water, (2) mass
removed by the extraction system, and (3) mass leaving
the domain unremediated. The mass in ground water
diminishes with time. However, some mass leaves the
system uncaptured by the proposed corrective action.
Thus, this pump-and-treat system will fall to contain the
contamination.
To assess the effect of increasing discharge and injection
rates on plume capture, simulations were performed in
which the total extraction and injection rates were
doubled. The increased pumping rates decreased the
VOC mass left in ground water but still failed to contain a
portion of the plume (indicated by the dashed line in
Figure 11). Thus, final pumping rates will need to be even
greater. These results show the importance of plume
capture analysis and emphasize the need for performance
monitoring and the use of a model in monitoring program
design.
The analysis of the above pump-and-treat system
indicated declining contaminant concentration at the
seven proposed extraction wells with time (Figure 12).
Most wells exhibit a decreasing trend after a few weeks of
operation. For each tenfold increase in the time of system
operation, the concentration of VOCs decreases by a
factor often. Some wells exhibit a temporary increase in
concentration as zones of contamination are flushed
toward the extraction wells. The effect of sorption also
was examined with the model. A nearly linear relationship
exists between retardation and time of remediation for a
specific level of contaminant.
Using an analytical model
The preceding example illustrates how a numerical model
may be used to evaluate pumping rates and cleanup
times. Other tools are available that allow for similar
evaluations. Scoping calculations to estimate the
pumpage required to capture a plume in a confined
aquifer may be performed using the semianalytical
model RESSQ (Javandel et al., 1984, and Javandel and
Tsang, 1986). RESSQ is applicable to two-dimensional
contaminant transport subject to advection and sorption
(no dispersion, diffusion, or degradation can be
considered) in a homogeneous, isotropic, confined aquifer
of uniform thickness when regional flow, sources, and
sinks create a steady-state flow field. Recharge wells act
as sources and pumping wells act as sinks. RESSQ
calculates ground-water flow paths in the
19
-------
MASS UNREMEDIATED
LEAVING GRID
PROPOSED
PLAN
MASSREMOVED
YREMEDIATION
MASS IN GROUNDWATER
NOTE: Conversion Factor
1lb = 0.4535 kg
10 100
TIME (days)
1000
Figure 11. Calculated VOC inventory versus time (from Ward et al., 1987)
10,000
UJ
dS"
bg 1,000
2%
U.S
Ss
OS
i8
EEo
100
UJ<
Oo
ZE 10
8°
-—t—f.~l~M.*.UJ™ r^ I 1 1 I I 11
Well1 ] ^~~•—• '
0.1
iL
tipTE: Conversion, Factor
1 ppb - 1 \\g/L '
1 10 100
TIME (days)
1,000
Figure 12. Calculated extraction well concentrations versus time (from Ward et al., 1987)
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
20
-------
aquifer, the location of contaminant fronts around sources at
various times, and the variation in contaminant concentration
with time at sinks. An example of how RESSQ can be used
to determine optimum pumping rates and well spacings is
presented below.
The site is located in glacial deposits and consists of a
leaking landfill with an associated plume (Figure 13). The goal
is to design a capture well network for the plume. The site is
more complex than the conditions simulated with RESSQ.
There is a convergent flow field caused, in part, by a sand
lens (not shown). This causes the plume to narrow with
distance from the landfill. For these scoping calculations, the
flow system considered is at the front of the plume, where the
wells are placed. For this location, a ground-water velocity of
0.205 ft/d (75 ft/yr) was estimated using Darcy's equation. The
aquifer is 30 feet thick and the plume width is approximately
600 feet. The regional flow rate is: 600 ft x 30 ft x 0.205 ft/day
= 3690 ft3/day or 19.2 gpm. The total pumping rate of the
wells will need to be approximately 20 gpm to capture the
plume. Using this pumping rate, flow lines computed by
RESSQ (see Figure 13) will capture the plume.
Next, the maximum pumping rate that is sustainable
without the wells going dry must be determined. The
computation of drawdown at a single well in a
multiple-well installation is not precise when a single
water-table aquifer of infinite extent is assumed. For 10
wells pumping at 2 gpm each, the maximum drawdown is
calculated using the Theis solution and superposition
(see, e.g., Walton, 1970) as 32 feet. This is an
overestimate, as the leakage from the layers below and
other sources (e.g., delayed yield) in the vicinity is not
considered. Therefore, 10 wells at 2 gpm is deemed
acceptable from the considerations of drawdown.
An optimum well spacing of 25 ft was determined based
on guidelines provided by Javandel and Tsang (1986).
Streamtubes representing uniform regional flow were
generated in the RESSQ simulations (Figure 13). The
streamtubes trace the movement of the contaminants in
the plume by advective transport. To ensure that
contaminants do not escape between a pair of wells, the
two streamtubes at the middle of the plume were divided
into 5-foot wide spacings. The resulting calculations using
RESSQ confirmed that the proposed pumping system
would effectively capture the plume.
CONTAMINANT PLUME
EXTRACTION WELLS
Figure 13. Simulation to capture front of the plume: 10 wells, 25 feet apart, pumping at 2 gpm each.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
21
-------
Example of a gasoline spill
Brown et al. (1988) present an evaluation of the effectiveness
of a pump-and-treat system for remediating a gasoline spill.
Petroleum hydrocarbons can exist in the subsurface as:
mobile free product, immobile residual, vapor, and as solute in
ground water (dissolved phase). The distribution of
hydrocarbons under these different conditions is a function of
their physical and chemical properties, and the
hydrogeological and geochemical characteristics of the
formation. The distribution can be defined by: (1) the areal
extent of contamination and the volume of the subsurface
impacted by a phase or (2) the amount of the contaminant
within a phase, measured as either total weight or
concentration.
Table 6 represents the phase distribution of the gasoline spill
in a sand-and-gravel aquifer. In this case, both the solubility of
the contaminant and the sorptive properties of the formation
are low. Consequently, most of the contaminant (91% of the
amount spilled) is light nonaqueous phase liquids (LNAPLs).
However, because of the low concentration and high mobility
of the dissolved component of gasoline in ground water, the
areal extent of ground-water contamination is greater than the
LNAPLs. The dissolved phase, however, contains only a small
fraction of the total mass.
Several observations can be made from Table 6. Pump-
and-treat technology is effective at recovering free product
-126,800 Ib or 91% of the mass was recovered. Because
this is a sand-and-gravel aquifer, pumping contaminated
ground water will be effective also. However, the
maximum contaminant level (MCL) for benzene, a
component of gasoline, is 5 ug/l. The time frame to reach
this remedial objective will be very long because the
solubility of gasoline at residual saturation is low.
Therefore, soil contamination (residual gasoline)
represents a significant source of ground-water
contamination. Brown at al. (1988) examined the
effectiveness of pump-and-treat technology for cleanup of
residual gasoline using laboratory studies. Their results
show that ground-water extraction is not effective in
treating residual saturation.
Pumping the LNAPLs removes most of the mass
effectively. Pumping the contaminated ground water is
effective but is efficient only if the contamination source
(residual gasoline) is remediated. Pump-and-treat
technology is not effective at removing the residual.
Therefore, once the mobile LNAPLs are removed, another
technology (such as soil venting or bioreclamation) must
be used for the contaminant source in the soil so that
groundwater extraction and cleanup can be accomplished
in a reasonable time.
Table 6. Phase distribution of gasoline in sand and gravel (Brown at al., 1988).
Phase
Free phase1
Residual
Dissolved
Extent of
Contamination
Volume,
cu yd
780
2,670
11,120
%of
Total
5.3
18.3
76.3
Mass
Distribution
Ib
126.8001
11,500
390
Cone.
ppm
--
2,000
15
%of
Total
90.9
8.2
0.3
1Actual value recovered from site through pumping
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
22
-------
Operation and Monitoring
Whatever remediation system is selected for a particular
site, the following items need to be described clearly:
• remedial action objectives,
• monitoring program, and
• contingencies (modification to the existing
remediation).
Remedial action objectives are the goals of the overall
remediation. To ensure that these are met, appropriate
monitoring must be conducted If the monitoring indicates
that the goals are not being met, then contingencies must
be specified concerning changes to the remediation
system that will ensure that the goals are reached, or will
specify alternate goals where original goals cannot be
practically achieved.
Remedial action objectives
According to Keely (1989), numerous monitoring criteria
and monitoring point locations are used as performance
standards. Monitoring criteria can be divided into three
categories: chemical, hydrodynamic, and administrative
control. Chemical monitoring criteria are risk based (U.S.
EPA, 1986b) and include Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs), Alternate Concentration Limits (ACLs), detection
limits, and natural water quality. Hydrodynamic
compliance criteria may include demonstrated prevention
or minimization of infiltration through the vadose zone,
maintenance of an inward hydraulic gradient at the
boundary of the contaminant plume, or providing minimum
flow to a surface water body. Administrative control
monitoring criteria range from reporting requirements,
such as frequency and character of operational and
post-operational monitoring, to land-use restrictions, such
as drilling bans and other access-limiting restrictions.
Monitoring
Once the remedial action objectives are established and a
remedial system is designed to meet these objectives,
the next stop is to design a monitoring program that will
evaluate the success of the remedial system. The
monitoring criteria will be important in establishing the
required monitoring program. Water quality monitoring is
important; water-level monitoring also is important and is
less expensive and subject to less uncertainty.
The location of monitoring wells is critical to a successful
monitoring program. For pump-and-treat technology,
extraction and injection wells produce complex flow
patterns locally, where previously there were different flow
patterns (Keely, 1989). In Figure 14, for example, water
moving along the flowline leading directly into an
extraction well from upgradient moves most rapidly,
whereas water at the lateral limits of the capture zone
moves more slowly. The result is that certain parts of the
aquifer are flushed rapidly while other parts are
remediated relatively poorly. Another possibility is that
previously clean portions of the aquifer may become
contaminated. Thus, monitoring well locations should be
based on an understanding of the flow system as it is
modified by the pump-and-treat system. Modeling
techniques, discussed previously, can be used to help in
site-specific monitoring network design.
To determine the flow system generated by a pump-and-
treat system, field evaluations must be made during the
operational phase. Consequently, in addition to data
collection for site characterization, data need to be
collected during and after pump-and-treat system
operation. Post operational monitoring is needed to
ensure that desorption or dissolution of residuals does not
cause an increase in the level of contamination after
operation of the system has ceased. This monitoring may
be required for about two to five years after system
termination and will depend on site conditions.
Evaluation and modification of existing
pump-and-treat systems
Because of the uncertainties involved in subsurface
characterization, a pump-and-treat system may require
modification during the initial operational stages.
Modifications may result from improved estimates of
hydraulic conductivity or more complete information on
chemistry and loading to the treatment facility. Other
modifications may be due to mechanical failures of
pumps, wells, or surface plumbing.
A similar situation to that involving a low-permeability
zone may arise where a zone of contamination is not
recovered by advection due to that zone's hydrodynamic
isolation. That is, the complex flow patterns established
by a pump-and-treat technology result in what are referred
to in hydrodynamics as "stagnation zones." Movement of
contaminants out of these zones is similar to the
movement out of lower hydraulic conductivity zones.
Fortunately, this situation is corrected by adjusting
pumping rates and/or well locations.
Periodic review and modification of the design,
construction, maintenance, and operation of the
pump-and-treat system will probably be necessary. The
performance of the system should be evaluated annually,
or more frequently, to determine if the goals and
standards of the design criteria are being met. If it is not,
adjustment or modification of the system may be
necessary. Modifications may also be made as one part
of the contaminant plume becomes clean or when
portions are not showing the desired progress.
Adjustments or modifications can include relocating or
adding extraction wells or altering pumping rates.
Switching from continuous pumping to pulsed pumping is
one modification that may improve the efficiency of
contaminant recovery. Pulsed pumping is the intermittent
operation of a pump-and-treat system. As shown in
Figure 15, the time when the pumps are off can allow the
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
23
-------
Figure 14. Flowline pattern generated by an extraction well (from Keely, 1989)
ON
OFF
MAX
DC
H
Z
1U
o
z
o
o
TIME
Figure 15. Reduction of residual contaminant mass by pulsed pumping (from Keely, 1989)
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
24
-------
contaminants to diffuse out of less permeable zones and
into adjacent higher hydraulic conductivity zones until
maximum concentrations are achieved in the latter. For
sorbed contaminants and residual NAPLs, this nonpumping
period can allow sufficient time for equilibrium
concentrations to be reached in local ground water. During
the subsequent pumping cycle, the minimum volume of
contaminated ground water can be removed at the
maximum possible concentration for the most efficient
treatment. The durations of pumping and nonpumping
periods (about 1-30 days) are site specific and can only be
optimized through trial-and-error operation. By occasionally
cycling only select wells, possible stagnation (zero or low
flow) zones may be brought into active flowpaths and
remediated (Keely, 1989). If plume capture must be
maintained, it will be necessary to maintain pumping on the
plume boundaries and perhaps only use pulsed pumping on
the interior of the plume. Termination of the pump-and-treat
system occurs when the cleanup goals are met In addition
to meeting concentration goals, termination also may occur
when optimum mass removal is achieved and it is not
practical to reduce contaminant levels further.
References
Abriola, L.M., 1983. Mathematical modeling of the
multiphase migration of oranic compounds in a
porous medium. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of
Civil Engineering, Princeton University, September.
Acker III, W.L., 1974. Basic Procedures for Soil Sampling
and Core Drilling, Acker Drill Co., Inc., Scranton,
Pennsylvania.
American Petroleum Institute, 1980. Underground spill
cleanup manual, API Publication 1628. Washington,
D.C.
American Petroleum Institute, 1989. A guide to the
assessment and remediation of underground
petroleum releases, API Publication 1628, (second
edition, 81 pp., Washington, D.C.
Ball, J.W., E.A. Jenne, and O.K. Nordstrom, 1979.
WATEQ2- -A computerized chemical model for trace
and major element speciation and mineral equilibria of
natural waters, ACS Svmp. Ser., 83, pp 815-835.
Benjamin, J.R., and C.A. Cornell, 1970. Probability
Statistics and Decisions for Civil Engineers. McGraw-
Hill, New York.
Bentall, R., 1963. Methods of determining permeability,
transimissibility and drawdown, U.S. Geological
Survey, Water Supply Paper, 1536-1, pp 243-341.
Barcelona, M.J., J.P. Gibb, and R.A. Miller, 1983. A guide
to the selection of materials for monitoring well
construction and ground-water sampling, Illinois State
Water Survey Contract Report No. 327, USEPA-
RSKERL, EPA-600/52-84/024, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Barcelona, M.J., J.P. Gibb, J.A. Helfrich, and E.E. Garske,
1985. Practical guide for ground-water sampling,
Illinois State Water Survey Contact Report No. 374,
USEPA-RSKERL under cooperative agreement CR-
809966-01, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Ada, Oklahoma.
Bouwer, E., J. Mercer, M. Kavanaugh, and F.
DiGiano,1988. Coping with groundwater
contamination, Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation. 6(8):1414-1428.
Bouwer, H. and R.C. Rice, 1976. A slug test for determining
hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers and
completely or partially penetrating wells, Water
Resources Research, 12:423-428.
Brown, R.A., G. Hoag, and R. Norris, 1988. The remediation
game: pump, dig or treat? in Groundwater Quality
Protection Pre-Conference Workshop Proceedings,
Water Pollution Control Federation, 61st Annual
Conference, Dallas, Texas pp 207-240.
Bb'gli, A., 1980. Karst Hydrology and Physical Speleology.
Sringer-Verliag, New York, New York.
Campbell, M.D., and J.H. Lehr, 1973. Water Well
Technology, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
Cartwright, K., and J.M. Shafer, 1987. Selected technical
considerations for data collection and interpretation - -
groundwater, in National Water Quality Monitoring
and Assessment. Washington, D.C.
Cohen, R.M., R.R. Rabold, C.R. Faust, J.O. Rumbaugh, III,
and J.R. Bridge, 1987. Investigation and hydraulic
containment of chemical migration: Four landfills in
Niagara Falls, Civil Engineering Practice, Journal of
the Boston Society of Civil Engineers Section/ASCE.
2 (1):33-58.
Cooper, H.H., Jr., J.D. Bredehoeft, and S.S. Papadopulos,
1967. Response of a finite diameter well to an
instantaneous charge of water, Water Resources
Research. 3(1):263-269.
Cooper, R.M., and J.D. Istok, 1988a. Geostatistics applied
to groundwater pollution. I: Methodology. Journal of
Environmental Engineering, ASCE, 114(2).
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
25
-------
Cooper, R.M., and J.D. Istok, 1988b. Geostatistics applied
to groundwater contamination. II: Methodology,
Journal of Environmental Engineering. ASCE. 114(2).
CRC Press, 1965. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics,
46th edition, Boca Raton, Florida.
Davis, J.C., 1973. Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 550 pp.
Davis, S.N., and R.J.M. DeWiest, 1966. Hvdrogeology,
John Wiely & Sons, New York, 463 pp.
de Pastrovich, T.L., Y. Baradat, R. Barthel, A. Chiarelli, and
D.R. Fussell, 1979. Protection of groundwater from oil
pollution, CONCAWE Report No. 3/79, Den Haag,
Netherlands, 61 pp.
Dettinger, M.D., and J.L. Wilson, 1981. First-order analysis
of uncertainty in numerical models of groundwater
flow, I: Mathematical development, Water Resources
Research. 17(1): 149-161.
Dobrin, M.B., 1976. Introduction to Geophysical
Prospecting. 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 630
pp.
Driscoll, F.G., 1986. Gound Water and Wells (second
edition), Johnson Division, UOP, Inc., St. Paul,
Minnesota.
Electric Power Research Institute, 1989. Estimates of
macrodispersivity based on analysis of hydraulic
conductivity variability at the MADE site, EPRI EN-
6405.
Englund, E., and A. Sparks, 1988. GEO-EAS
(Geostatistical environmental assessment software)
User's Guide, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA/600/4-88/033a, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Ferris, J.G., D.B. Knowles, R.H. Brown, and R.W.
Stallman, 1962. Theory of aquifer tests, U.S.
Geological Survey Water Supply Paper, 1536-E, pp
69-174.
Fetter, C.W. Jr., 1980. Applied Hvdrogeology Charles E.
Merrill, Ohio.
Freeze, R.A., and J.A. Cherry, 1979. Groundwater,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Fussell, D.R., H. Godjen, P. Hayward, R.H. Lilie, A. Marco,
and C. Panisi, 1981. Revised inland oil spill cleanup
manual, CONCAWE, Den Haag, Netherlands.
Gilbert, R.O., 1987. Statistical Methods for Environmental
Pollution Monitoring, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.,
New York, 320 pp.
Gorelick, S.M., C.I. Voss, P.E. Gill, W. Murray, M.A.
Saunders, and M.H. Wright, 1984. Aquifer
reclamation design: The use of contaminant
transport simulation combined with nonlinear
programming, Water Resources Research, 20, pp
415-427.
Hall, C.W., 1988. Practical limits to pump and treat
technology for aquifer remediation, in Groundwater
Quality Protection Pre-Conference Workshop
Proceedings. Water Pollution Control Federation,
61st Annual Conference, Dallas, Texas, pp 7-12.
Iman, R.L., and M. Shortencarier, 1984. A Fortran 77
program and user's guide for the generation of latin
hypercube and random samples for use with
computer models, Rep. NUREG/CR-3624,
SAND83-2365, prepared for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission by Sandia National Laboratory,
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
International Association of Hydrological Sciences, 1988.
Karst hydrogeology and karst environment protection,
IAHS Publication 176,1261 pp.
Jacob, C.E., 1950. Flow of groundwater in H. Rouse (ed.),
Engineering Hydraulics,John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York, pp 321-386.
Javandel, I., C. Doughty, and C.F. Tsang, 1984.
Groundwater Transport: Handbook of Mathematical
Models. American Geophysical Union, Water
Resources Monograph 10, Washington, D.C, 228 pp.
Javandel, I., and C.F. Tsang, 1986. Capture-zone type
curves: A tool for aquifer cleanup, Ground Water,
24(5):616-625.
Journal, A., 1978. Mining Geostatistics. Academic Press,
London, England.
Kalos, M.H., and P.A. Whitlock, 1986. Monte Carlo
Methods. Volume I: Basics, John Wiley & Sons,
New York, 186 pp.
Keeley, J.W., D.C. Bouchard, M.R. Scalf, and C.G. Enfield,
1989. Practical limits to pump and treat technology
for aquifer remediation. Submitted to Ground Water
Monitoring Review.
Keely, J.F., 1984. Optimizing pumping strategies for
contaminant studies and remedial actions, Ground
Water Monitoring Review. 4(3):63-74.
Keely, J.F., 1989. Performance evaluations of pump-and
-treat remediations, EPA Superfund Ground Water
issue, EPA/540/4-89/005.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
26
-------
Keys, W.S., and L.M. MacCary, 1971. Application of
borehole geophysics to water-resources
investigations in Techniques of Water-Resources
Investigations. U.S. Geological Survey, Book 2,
Chapter E1.
Knox, R.C., L.W. Canter, D.F. Kincannon, E.L. Stover, and
C.H. Ward, 1986. Aquifer Restoration: State of the
Art. Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, New Jersey.
Kruseman, G.P. and N.A. De Ridder,1976. Analysis and
evaluation of pumping test data, International Institute
for Land Reclamation and Improvement, Wageningen,
The Netherlands, 200 pp.
Kwader, T., 1986. The use of geophysical logs for
determining formation water quality, Ground Water.
24, pp11-15.
Lattman, L.H., and R.R. Parizek, 1964. Relationship
between fracture traces and the occurrence of ground
water in carbonate rocks, Journal of Hydrology,2, pp
73-91.
Lin, C., G.F. Pinder, and E.F. Wood, 1982. Water and
trichlorethylene as immiscible fluids in porous media,
Water Resources Progress Report 83-W2-2,
Princeton University, October.
Lindorff, D.E., and K. Cartwright, 1977. Ground-water
contamination: Problems and remedial actions,
Environmental Geology Notes No. 81, Illinois State
Geological Survey, Urbana, Illinois, 58 pp.
Lyman, W.J., W.F. Reehl, and D.H. Rosenblatt (eds.),
1982. Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation
Methods, McGraw-Hill Co., New York.
Mackay, D.M., and J.A. Cherry, 1989. Groundwater
contamination: Pump-and-treat remediation,
Environmental Science Technology, 23(6):630-636.
Marrin, D.L., and G.M. Thompson, 1984. Remote detection
of volatile organic contaminants in groundwater via
shallow soil gas sampling in Petroleum Hydrocarbons
and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water. National
Water Well Association, Worthington, Ohio, pp
172-187.
McDonald, M.G., and A.W. Harbaugh, 1984. A modular
three-dimensional finite-difference groundwater flow
model, U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report
83-875.
Mercer, J.W., C.R. Faust, A.D. Truschel, and R.M. Cohen,
1987. Control of groundwater contamination: Case
studies, Proceedings of Detection, Control and
Renovation of Contaminated Ground Water, EE
Div/ASCE, Atlantic City, pp. 121-133.
Morel, F., and J. Morgan, 1972. A numerical method for
computing equilibria in aqueous chemical systems,
Environmental Science Technology. 6, pp 58-67.
Papadopulos, I.S., J.D. Bredehoeft, and H.H. Cooper, Jr.,
1973. On the analysis of "slug test" data, Water
Resources Research,9(4V1087-1089.
Quinlan, J.F., and R.O. Ewers, 1985. Ground water flow in
limestone terrains: Strategy rationale and procedure
for reliable, efficient monitoring of ground water quality
in karst areas, Proceedings of the National
Symposium and Exposition on Aguifer Restoration
and Ground Water Monitoring (5th), Columbus, Ohio,
National Water Well Association, Dublin, Ohio, pp
197-234.
Satkin, R.L., and P.B. Bedient, 1988. Effectiveness of
various aquifer restoration schemes under variable
hydrogeologic conditions, Ground Water,
26(4):488-498.
Scalf, M.R., S.F. McNabb, W.I. Dunlap, R.L. Cosby, and J.
Fryberger, 1981. Manual of groundwater quality
sampling procedures, Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Ada, Oklahoma.
Shafer, J.M., 1987. GWPATH: Interactive ground-water flow
path analysis, ISWS/BUL-69/87, Illinois State Water
Survey, Champaign, Illinois.
Shah, D.O. (ed.), 1981. Surface Phenomena in Enhanced
Oil Recovery, Plenum Press, New York.
Stewart, M., M. Layton, and T. Lizanec, 1983. Application
of surface resistivity surveys to regional hydrogeologic
reconnaissance, Ground Water, 21, pp 42-48.
Streltsova, T.D., 1988. Well Testing in Heterogeneous
Formations. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Sundstrom, D.W., and H.E. Kiel, 1979. Wastwater
Treatment, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, 444 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984a. Case
studies 1-23: Remedial response at hazardous waste
sites, EPA/540/2-84-002b, Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984b. Summary
report: Remedial response at hazardous waste sites,
EPA/540/2-84-002a, Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985. Modeling
remedial actions at uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites, EPA/540/2-85/001, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
27
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986a. RCRA
ground-water monitoring technical enforcement
guidance document, OSWER-9950.1, Washington,
D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986b. Superfund
public health evaluation manual, EPA/540/1-86/060,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987a. A
compendium of technologies used in the treatment of
hazardous wastes, EPA/625/8-87/014, 49 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987b. Handbook
Ground Water, EPA/625/6-87/016, Cincinnati, Ohio,
212 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987b. MINTEQA1,
an equilibrium metal speculation model: user's
manual, EPA/600/3-87/012, Athens, Georgia.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988a. Guidance on
remedial actions for contaminated ground water at
Superfund sites. EPA/540/G-88/003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988b. Guidance for
conducting remedial investigations and feasibility
studies under CERCLA, March Draft, Office of Solid
Waste and Engineering Response Directive
9355.3-01.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988c. Groundwater
modeling: an overview and status report.
EPA/600/2-89/028.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989. Evaluation of
ground-water extraction remedies, Vols 1 and 2
(Draft), Prepared by CH2M Hill, Contract No. 68-
W8-0098, Washington, D.C.
van der Heijde, P.K.M., Y. Bachmat, J. Bredehoeft, B.
Andrews, D. Holtz, and S. Sebastian, 1985.
Groundwater Management: The Use of Numerical
Models, 2nd edition, AGU Water Resources
Monograph no. 5, American Geophysical Union,
Washington, D.C.
Walton, W.C., 1970. Groundwater Resource Evaluation,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
Ward, D.S., D.R. Buss, J.W. Mercer, and S.S. Hughes,
1987. Evaluation of a groundwater corrective action of
the Chem-Dyne Hazardous Waste site using a
telescopic mesh refinement modeling approach,
Water Resources Research, 23(4):603-617.
Wilson, L.G., 1981. Monitoring in the vadose zone, part I:
Storage changes, Ground Water Monitoring Review,
1(3):32.
Wilson, L.G., 1982. Monitoring in the vadose zone, part II,
Ground Water Monitoring Review. 2(4):31.
Wilson, L.G., 1983. Monitoring in the vadose zone, part III,
Ground Water Monitoring Review, 3(4):155.
Wolery, T.J., 1979. Calculation of Chemical Equilibrium
between Aqueous Solution and Minerals : The EQ3/6
Software Package. UCRL-52658, Lawrence Livermore
Laboratories, Livermore, California.
Ziegler, G.J., 1989. Remediation through groundwater
recovery and treatment, Pollution Engineering, July,
pp 75-79.
28
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
Glossary
Adsorption:
Advection:
Aquifer:
Aquifer test:
Biodegradation:
Biotransformation:
Bulk density:
Confined aquifer:
Conservative solutes:
Darcy's Law:
Density:
Desorption:
Diffusion:
Dispersion:
Distribution coefficient:
DNAPL:
Effective porosity:
EOR:
Extraction well:
Fixation:
Fracture trace:
FS:
Heterogeneous:
Adherence of ions or molecules in solution to the surface of solids.
The process whereby solutes are transported by the bulk mass of flowing fluid.
A geologic unit that contains sufficient saturated permeable material to transmit significant
quantities of water.
See pump test and slug test.
A subset of biotransformation, it is the biologically mediated conversion of a compound to more
simple products.
Chemical alteration of organic compounds brought about by microorganisms.
The oven-dried mass of a sample divided its field volume.
An aquifer bounded above and below by units of distinctly lower hydraulic conductivity and in which
the pore water pressure is greater than atmospheric pressure.
Chemicals that do not react with the soil and/or native ground water or undergo biological,
chemical, or radioactive decay.
An empirical law stating that the velocity of flow through a porous medium is directly proportional
to the hydraulic gradient assuming that the flow is laminar and inertia can be neglected.
The mass per unit volume of a substance.
The reverse of sorption.
Mass transfer as a result of random motion of molecules; described by Fick's first law.
Spreading and mixing chemical constituents in ground water caused by diffusion and mixing due to
microscopic variations in velocities within and between pores.
The quantity of the solute, chemical, or radionuclide sorbed by the solid per unit weight of solid
divided by the quantity dissolved in the water per unit volume of water.
Denser-than-water nonaqueous phase liquid.
The ratio, usually expressed as a percentage, of the total volume of voids available for fluid
transmission to the total volume of the porous medium.
Enhanced oil recovery methods used to reduce interfacial tension by some type of injection.
Pumped well used to remove contaminated ground water.
Mixing of contaminated soils with a chemical stabilizer, usually a cementatious grout compound.
Visible on aerial photographs, fracture traces are natural linear-drainage, soil-tonal, and topographic
alignments that are probably the surface manifestation of underlying zones of fractures.
Feasibility study.
A geologic unit in which the hydrologic properties vary from point to point.
29
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
Homogeneous:
Hydraulic barrier:
Hydraulic conductivity:
Hydraulic gradient:
Interstitial velocity:
Intrinsic permeability:
Linear soil partition
coefficient:
LNAPL:
Miscible:
MCL:
MCLG:
Monitoring well:
NAPL:
Partitioning:
Piezometer:
Porosity:
Pulsed pumping:
Pump test:
Remedial action
objective:
A geologic unit in which the hydrologic properties are identical everywhere.
Barrier to flow caused by system hydraulics, e.g., a line of ground-water discharge caused by
extraction wells.
A measure of the volume of water at the existing kinematic viscosity that will move in a unit time
under a unit hydraulic gradient through a unit area of medium measured at right angles to the
direction of flow.
The change in head per unit distance in a given direction, typically in the principal flow direction.
Rate of discharge of ground water per unit area of the geologic medium per percentage volume of
the medium occupied by voids measured at right angles to the direction of flow.
A measure of the relative ease with which a porous medium can transmit a liquid under a potential
gradient. Intrinsic permeability is a property of the medium alone that is dependent on the shape
and size of the openings through which the liquid moves.
Ratio of the mass concentration of a solute in solid phase to its mass concentration in
the aqueous phase.
Lighter-than-water nonaqueous phase liquid.
Able to be mixed.
Maximum contaminant level: Enforceable standards established under the Safe Drinking Water
Act.
Maximum contaminant level goal: Non-enforceable health goals established under the Safe
Drinking Water Act intended to protect against known and anticipated adverse human health effects
with an adequate margin of safety.
A tube or pipe, open to the atmosphere at the top and to water at the bottom, usually along an
interval of slotted screen, used for taking ground-water samples.
Nonaqueous phase liquids.
Chemical equilibrium condition where a chemical's concentration is apportioned between two
different phases according to the partition coefficient, which is the ratio of a chemical's
concentration in one phase to its concentration in the other phase.
A tube or pipe, open to the atmosphere at the top and to water at the bottom, and sealed along its
length, used to measure the hydraulic head in a geologic unit.
A measure of interstitial space contained in a rock (or soil) expressed as the percentage ratio of
void space to the total (gross) volume of the rock.
Pump-and-treat enhancement where extraction wells are periodically not pumped to allow
concentrations in the extracted water to increase.
Test for estimating the values of various hydrogeologic parameters in which water is continuously
pumped from a well and the consequent effect on water levels in surrounding piezometers or
monitoring wells is monitored.
A description of remedial goals for each medium of concern at a site; expressed in
terms of the contamination of concern, exposure route(s) and receptor(s), and maximum
acceptable exposure level(s).
Residual saturation: Saturation below which fluid drainage will not occur.
30
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
Retardation:
Rl:
Slug test:
Soil gas survey:
Sorption:
Specific gravity:
Storage coefficient:
Superposition:
Tailing:
Treatment train:
Vacuum extraction:
Vadose zone:
Viscosity:
Volatilization:
Water table:
Water-table aquifer:
Zone of capture:
Zone of influence:
The movement of a solute through a geologic medium at a velocity less than that of the flowing
ground water due to sorption or other removal of the solute.
Remedial investigation.
A test for estimating hydraulic conductivity values in which a rapid water-level change is produced
in a piezometer or monitoring well, usually by introducing or withdrawing a "slug" of water or a
weight. The resultant rise or decline in the water level is monitored.
Technique used to obtain air from subsurface cavities (e.g., using a soil gas probe); soil gas
sample is analyzed and used as an indicator of volatile organic compounds in ground water or soil.
Processes that remove solutes from the fluid phase and concentrate them on the solid phase of a
medium.
The ratio of a substance's density to the density of some standard substance, usually water.
The volume of water an aquifer releases from, or takes into, storage per unit surface area of aquifer
per unit change in the component of head normal to that surface.
Principle used for linear problems, such as confined ground-water flow, that allows equation
solutions to be added to form new solutions. For example, if within a well field, pumping rates of the
pumped wells are known, the composite drawdown at a point can be determined by summing the
drawdown caused by each individual pumped well.
The slow, nearly asymptotic decrease in contaminant concentration in water flushed through
contaminated geologic material.
Combination of several remedial actions, e.g., pump-and-treat approach used for ground-water
contamination, combined with vacuum extraction for soil contamination.
Inducing advective-vapor transport by withdrawing or injecting air through wells screened in the
vadose zone.
That region above the saturated zone.
The internal friction within a fluid that causes it to resist flow.
The transfer of a chemical from liquid to the gas phase.
The surface in an aquifer at which pore water pressure is equal to atmospheric pressure.
An aquifer in which the water table forms the upper boundary.
Area surrounding a pumping well that encompasses all areas or features that supply ground-water
recharge to the well.
Area surrounding a pumping or recharging well within which the water table or potentiometric
surface has been changed due to the well's pumping or recharge.
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
31
-------
Appendix A - Chemical Data
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
Table A-1. Water Solubility, Vapor Pressure, Henry's Law Constant, Koc, and Kow Data for Selected Chemicals.
Chemical Name
PESTICIDES
Acrolein [2-Propenal]
Aldicarb [Temik]
Aldrin
Captan
Carbaryl [Sevin]
Carbofuran
Carbophenothion [Trithion]
Chlordane
p-Chloroaniline [4-Chlorobenzenamine]
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorpyrifos [Dursban]
Crotoxyphos [Ciodrin]
Cyclophosphamide
ODD
DDE
DDT
Diazonin [Spectracide]
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane [DBCP]
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropene [Telone]
Dichlorvos
Dieldrin
Dimethoate
Dinoseb
N,N-Diphenylamine
Disulfoton
alpha-Endosulfan
beta-Endosulfan
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Endrin Ketone
Ethion
Ethylene Oxide
Fenitrothion
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane
CAS#
107-02-8
116-06-3
309-00-2
133-06-2
63-25-2
1563-66-2
786-19-6
57-74-9
106-47-8
510-15-6
2921-88-2
7700-17-6
50-18-0
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
333-41-5
96-12-8
78-87-5
542-75-6
62-73-7
60-57-1
60-51-5
88-85-7
122-39-4
298-04-4
115-29-7
115-29-7
1031-07-8
72-20-8
7421-93-4
563-12-2
75-21-8
122-14-5
76-44-8
1024-57-3
319-84-6
EPA
PP
HPP
HPP
HSL
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
PP
HSL
HPP
HPP
HPP
Water
Solubility
(mg/l)
2.08E+05
7.80E+03
1.80E-01
5.00E-01
4.00E+01
4.15E+02
5.60E-01
5.30E+03
2.19E+01
3.00E-01
1.00E+03
1.31E+09
1.00E-01
4.00E-02
5.00E-03
4.00E+01
1.00E+03
2.70E+03
2.80E+03
1.00E+04
1.95E-01
2.50E+04
5.00E+01
5.76E+01
2.50E+01
1.60E-01
7.00E-02
1.60E-01
2.40E-02
2.00E+00
1.00E+06
3.00E+01
1.80E-01
3.50E-01
1.63E+00
Ref
H
E
A
A
A
G
A
L
A
E
E
A
A
A
A
E
A
A
A
E
A
A
A
A
E
H
H
H
E
E
A
E
A
A
A
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Hg)
2.69E+02
6.00E-06
6.00E-05
5.00E-03
2.00E-05
1.00E-05
2.00E-02
1.20E-06
1.87E-05
1.40E-05
1.89E-06
6.50E-06
5.50E-06
1.40E-04
1.00E+00
4.20E+01
2.50E+01
1.20E-02
1.78E-07
2.50E-02
5.00E-05
3.80E-05
1.80E-04
1.00E-05
1.00E-05
2.00E-07
1.50E-06
1.31E+03
6.00E-06
3.00E-04
3.00E-04
2.50E-05
Ref
H
A
A
A
G
A
G
A
J
J
A
A
A
J
A
A
A
J
A
A
G
A
E
H
H
G
J
A
J
A
A
A
Henry's Law
Constant
(atm-m3/mol)
9.45E-05
1.60E-05
4.75E-05
3.31E-05
1.40E-08
9.63E-06
6.40E-07
2.34E-08
2.87E-05
5.79E-09
7.96E-06
6.80E-05
5.13E-04
1.40E-06
3.11E-04
2.31E-03
1.30E-01
3.50E-07
4.58E-07
3.00E-07
3.16E-07
1.47E-07
2.60E-06
3.35E-05
7.65E-05
4.17E-06
3.79E-07
7.56E-05
7.30E-08
8.19E-04
4.39E-04
5.87E-06
Ref
X
A
A
X
X
A
X
A
X
X
A
A
A
X
A
A
A
X
A
X
X
A
X
X
X
X
X
A
X
A
A
A
Koc
(ml/g)
9.60E+04
6.40E+03
2.30E+02
2.94E+01
4.66E+04
1.40E+05
5.61E+02
8.00E+02
1.36E+04
7.48E+01
4.20E-02
7.70E+05
4.40E+06
2.43E+05
8.50E+01
9.80E+01
5.10E+01
4.80E+01
1.70E+03
1.24E+02
4.70E+02
1.60E+03
1.54E+04
2.20E+00
1.20E-04
2.20E+02
3.80E+03
Ref
A
B
G
F
F
A
F
B
E
F
B
A
A
A
P
B
A
A
A
E
B
F
E
B
A
A
A
Kow
8.13E-01
5.00E+00
2.00E+05
2.24E+02
2.29E+02
2.07E+02
2.09E+03
6.76E+01
3.24E+04
6.60E+04
6.03E-04
1.58E+06
1.00E+07
1.55E+06
1.05E+03
1.95E+02
1.00E+02
1.00E+02
2.50E+01
3.16E+03
5.10E-01
1.98E+02
3.98E+03
3.55E+03
4.17E+03
4.57E+03
2.18E+05
6.03E-01
2.40E+03
2.51E+04
5.01E+02
7.94E+03
Ref
H
F
A
A
A
F
A
M
A
F
A
A
A
A
F
A
A
A
E
A
E
F
A
H
H
H
E
A
E
A
A
A
Notes: PP = Priority Pollutant; HSL = Hazardous Substance List Parameter; HPP = PP and HSL Parameters.
Additional notes and data references are provided at end of this table.
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
A-1
-------
Table A-1. Water Solubility, Vapor Pressure, Henry's Law Constant, Koc, and Kow Data for Selected Chemicals.
Chemical Name
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane
delta-Hexachlorocyclohexane
gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane [Lindane]
Isophorone
Kepone
Leptophos
Malathion
Methoxychlor
Methyl Parathion
Mirex [Dechlorane]
Nitralin
Parathion
Phenylurea [Phenylcarbamide]
Phorate [Thimet]
Phosmet
Ronnel [Fenchlorphos]
Strychnine
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Toxaphene
Trichlorfon [Chlorofos]
HERBICIDES
Alachlor
Ametryn
Amitrole [Aminotriazole]
Atrazine
Benfluralin [Benefin]
Bromocil
Cacodylic Acid
Chloramben
Chlorpropham
Dalapon [2,2-Dichloropropanoic Acid]
Diallate
Dicamba
Dichlobenil [2,6-Dichlorobenzonitrile]
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid [2,4-D]
Dipropetryne
Diuron
Fenuron
Fluometuron
CAS # EPA
319-85-7 HPP
319-86-8 HPP
58-89-9 HPP
78-59-1 HPP
143-50-0
21609-90-5
121-75-7
72-43-5 HSL
298-00-0
2385-85-5
4726-14-1
56-38-2
64-10-8
298-02-2
732-11-6
299-84-3
57-24-9
1746-01-6
8001-35-2 HPP
52-68-6
15972-60-8
834-12-8
61-82-5
1912-24-9
1861-40-1
314-40-9
75-60-5
133-90-4
101-21-3
75-99-0
2303-16-4
1918-00-9
1194-65-6
94-75-7
47-51-7
330-54-1
101-42-8
2164-17-2
Water
Solubility
(mg/l)
2.40E-01
3.14E+01
7.80E+00
1.20E+04
9.90E-03
2.40E+00
1.45E+02
3.00E-03
6.00E+01
6.00E-01
6.00E-01
2.40E+01
5.00E+01
2.50E+01
6.00E+00
1.56E+02
2.00E-04
5.00E-01
1.54E+05
2.42E+02
1.85E+02
2.80E+05
3.30E+01
<1.0E+00
8.20E+02
8.30E+05
7.00E+02
8.80E+01
5.02E+05
1.40E+01
4.50E+03
1.80E+01
6.20E+02
1.60E+01
4.20E+01
3.85E+03
9.00E+01
Ref
A
A
A
H
A
E
A
E
A
C
E
G
E
E
E
A
A
A
A
E
E
A
G
E
P
A
E
E
E
A
E
E
A
J
E
E
G
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Hg)
2.80E-07
1.70E-05
1.60E-04
3.80E-01
4.00E-05
9.70E-06
3.00E-01
9.30E-09
3.78E-05
8.40E-04
<1.0E-03
8.00E-04
1.70E-06
4.00E-01
7.80E-06
1.40E-06
3.89E-04
<7.0E-03
6.40E-03
2.00E-05
3.00E-06
4.00E-01
7.50E-07
<3.1E-06
<1.6E-04
Ref
A
A
A
H
A
A
C
J
J
J
J
J
A
A
A
K
J
J
A
G
J
A
J
J
K
Henry's Law
Constant
(atm-m3/mol)
4.47E-07
2.07E-07
7.85E-06
5.75E-06
1.20E-07
5.59E-08
3.59E-01
7.04E-09
6.04E-07
8.49E-11
5.64E-05
3.60E-03
4.36E-01
1.71E-11
2.59E-13
1.65E-04
1.30E-09
3.77E-08
1.88E-04
1.53E-08
Ref
A
A
A
X
X
A
X
X
X
X
X
A
A
A
X
A
X
X
A
X
Koc
(ml/g)
3.80E+03
6.60E+03
1.08E+03
5.50E+04
9.30E+03
1.80E+03
8.00E+04
5.10E+03
2.40E+07
9.60E+02
1.07E+04
7.63E+01
3.26E+03
3.30E+06
9.64E+02
6.10E+00
1.90E+02
3.88E+02
4.40E+00
1.63E+02
1.07E+04
7.20E+01
2.40E+00
2.10E+01
8.16E+02
1.90E+03
2.20E+00
2.24E+02
1.96E+01
1.18E+03
3.82E+02
4.22E+01
1.75E+02
Ref
A
A
A
B
E
F
E
F
G
G
F
F
F
A
A
B
E
F
B
F
E
F
B
E
F
G
F
F
F
F
F
F
G
Kow
7.94E+03
1.26E+04
7.94E+03
5.01E+01
1.00E+02
2.02E+06
7.76E+02
4.75E+04
8.13E+01
7.80E+06
6.45E+03
6.61E+00
6.77E+02
4.64E+04
8.51E+01
5.25E+06
2.00E+03
1.95E+02
4.34E+02
8.32E-03
2.12E+02
1.04E+02
1.00E+00
1.30E+01
1.16E+03
5.70E+00
5.37E+00
3.00E+00
7.87E+02
6.46E+02
6.50E+02
1.00E+01
2.20E+01
Ref
A
A
A
H
A
E
A
E
A
D
F
M
E
E
M
A
A
A
F
A
F
F
A
F
F
F
A
F
F
A
F
E
E
Notes: PP= Priority Pollutant; HSL = Hazardous Substance List Parameter; HPP = PP and HSL Parameters.
Additional notes and data references are provided at end of this table.
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
A-2
-------
Table A-1. Water Solubility, Vapor Pressure, Henry's Law Constant, Koc, and Kow Data for Selected Chemicals.
Chemical Name
Linuron
Methazole [Oxydiazol]
Metobromuron
Monuron
Neburon
Oxadiazon
Paraquat
Phenylmercuric Acetate [PMA]
Picloram
Prometryne
Propachlor
Propazine
Silvex [Fenoprop]
Simazine
Terbacil
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic Acid
Triclopyr
Trifluralin
CAS n EPA
330-55-2
20354-26-1
3060-89-7
150-68-5
555-37-3
19666-30-9
4685-14-7
62-38-4
1918-02-1
7287-19-6
1918-16-7
139-40-2
93-72-1
122-34-9
5902-51-2
93-76-5
55335-06-3
1582-09-8
Water
Solubility
(mg/l)
7.50E+01
1.50E+00
3.30E+02
2.30E+02
4.80E+00
7.00E-01
1 .OOE+06
1 .67E+03
4.30E+02
4.80E+01
5.80E+02
8.60E+00
1 .40E+02
3.50E+00
7.10E+02
2.38E+02
4.30E+02
6.00E-01
Ref
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
A
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Hg)
1.50E-05
3.00E-06
5.00E-07
<1.0E-06
<6.2E-07
1.00E-06
1.60E-07
3.60E-08
1.26E-06
2.00E-04
Ref
J
J
J
J
K
J
K
K
J
G
Henry's Law
Constant
(atm-m3/mol)
6.56E-08
3.10E-09
5.68E-10
6.62E-09
5.63E-09
2.73E-09
9.89E-10
1 .47E-04
Ref
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Koc
(ml/g)
8.63E+02
2.62E+03
2.71 E+02
1.83E+02
3.11E+03
3.24E+03
1.55E+04
2.55E+01
6.14E+02
2.65E+02
1.53E+02
2.60E+03
1.38E+02
4.12E+01
8.01 E+01
2.70E+01
1.37E+04
Ref
F
E
F
F
F
E
E
F
F
E
F
E
F
F
F
E
E
Kow
1.54E+02
1.33E+02
1.00E+00
2.00E+00
5.60E+02
7.85E+02
8.80E+01
7.80E+01
4.00E+00
3.00E+00
2.20E+05
Ref
E
F
F
F
E
E
F
F
E
E
E
ALIPHATIC COMPOUNDS
Acetonitrilie [Methyl Cyanide]
Acrylonitrile [2-Propenenitrile]
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Bromodichloromethane [Dichlorobromometh]
Bromomethane [Methyl Bromide]
1,3-Butadiene
Chloroethane [Ethyl Chloride]
Chloroethene [Vinyl Chloride]
Chloromethane [Methyl Chloride]
Cyanogen [Ethanedinitrile]
Dibromochloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane [Freon 12]
1,2-Dichloroethane [Ethylidine Chloride]
1,2-Dichloroethane [Ethylene Dichloride]
1,2-Dichloroethene [Vinylindine Chloride]
1,2-Dichloroethene (cis)
1,2-Dichloroethene (trans)
Dichloromethane [Methylene Chloride]
Ethylene Dibromide [EDB]
Hexachlorobutadiene
75-05-8
107-13-1
111-91-1
75-27-4
74-83-9
106-99-0
75-00-3
75-01-4
74-87-3
460-19-5
124-48-1
75-71-8
75-34-3
107-06-2
75-35-4
540-59-0
540-59-0
75-09-2
106-93-4
87-68-3
PP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
infinite
7.94E+04
8.10E+04
4.40E+03
1.30E+04
7.35E+02
5.74E+03
2.67E+03
6.50E+03
2050E+05
4.00E+03
2.80E+02
5.50E+03
8.52E+03
2.25E+03
3.50E+03
6.30E+03
2.00E+04
4.30E+03
1.50E-01
A
A
I
Q
G
A
C
A
A
A
Q
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
7.40E+01
1 .OOE+02
<1.0E-01
5.00E+01
1.40E+03
1.84E-03
1 .OOE+03
2.66E+03
4.31 E+03
1.50E+01
4.87E+03
1 .82E+02
6.40E+01
6.00E+02
2.08E+02
3.24E+02
3.62E+02
1.17E+01
2.00E+00
A
A
I
H
G
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
4.00E-06
8.84E-05
2.40E-03
1.30E-02
1.78E-01
6.15E-04
8.19E-02
4.40E-02
9.90E-04
2.97E+00
4.31E-03
9.78E-04
3.40E-02
7.58E-03
6.56E-03
2.03E-03
6.73E-04
4.57E+00
A
A
Q
G
A
X
A
A
Q
X
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
2.20E+00
8.50E-01
6.10E+01
1.20E+02
1.70E+01
5.70E+01
3.50E+01
8.40E+01
5.80E+01
3.00E+01
1.40E+01
6.50E+01
4.90E+01
5.90E+01
8.80E+00
4.40E+01
2.90E+04
B
A
Q
B
C
B
B
Q
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
4.57E-01
1.78E+00
1.82E+01
7.59E+01
1.26E+01
9.77E+01
3.50E+01
2.40E+01
9.50E-01
1.23E+02
1.45E+02
6.17E+01
3.02E+01
6.92E+01
5.01 E+00
3.02E+00
2.00E+01
5.75E+01
6.02E+04
A
A
I
I
I
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Notes: PP= Priority Pollutant; HSL = Hazardous Substance List Parameter; HPP = PP and HSL Parameters.
Additional notes and data references are provided at end of this table.
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
A-3
-------
Table A-1. Water Solubility, Vapor Pressure, Henry's Law Constant, Koc, and Kow Data for Selected Chemicals.
Chemical Name
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane [Perchloroethane]
lodomethane [Methyl Iodide]
Isoprene
Pentachloroethane [Pentalin]
1,1, 1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1, 2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene [PERC]
Tetrachloromethane [CarbonTetrachloride]
Tribromomethane [Bromoform]
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane [Methychlorof orm]
1,1,2-Trichloroethane [Vinyltrichloride]
Trichloroethene [TCE]
Trichlorofluoromethane [Freon! 1]
Trichloromethane [Chloroform]
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane
CAS n
77-47-4
67-72-1
77-88-4
78-79-5
76-01-7
630-20-6
79-34-5
127-18-4
56-23-5
75-25-2
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
67-66-3
76-13-1
EPA
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
PP
HPP
Water
Solubility
(mg/l)
2.10E+00
5.00E+01
1 .40E+04
3.70E+01
2.90E+03
2.90E+03
1 .50E+02
7.57E+02
3.01 E+03
1.50E+03
4.50E+03
1.10E+03
1.10E+03
8.20E+03
1.00E+01
Ref
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Hg)
8.00E-02
4.00E-01
4.00E+02
4.00E+02
3.40E+00
5.00E+00
5.00E+00
1.78E+01
9.00E+01
5.00E+00
1.23E+01
3.00E+01
5.79E+01
6.67E+02
1.51E+02
2.70E+02
Ref
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Henry's Law
Constant
(atm-m3/mol)
1.37E-02
2.49E-03
5.34E-03
2.44E-02
3.81 E-04
3.81 E-04
2.59E-02
2.41 E-02
5.52E-04
1.44-E02
1.17E-03
9.10E-03
1.10E-01
2.873-03
Ref
A
A
A
X
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Q
A
Koc
(ml/g)
4.80E+03
2.00E+04
2.30E+01
1.90E+03
5.40E+01
1.18E+02
3.64E+02
4.39E+02
1.16E+02
1.52E+02
5.60E+01
1.26E+02
1.59E+02
4.70E+01
Ref
A
A
B
D
B
A
A
Q
A
A
A
A
A
C
Kow
1.10E+05
3.98E+04
4.90E+01
7.76E+02
2.45E+02
3.98E+02
4.37E+02
2.51 E+02
3.16E+02
2.95E+02
2.40E+02
3.39E+02
9.33E+01
1.00E+02
Ref
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AROMATIC COMPOUNDS
1,1-Biphenyl [Diphenyl]
Benzene
Bromobenzene [Phenly Bromide]
Chlorobenzene
4-Chloro-m-cresol [Chlorocresol]
2-Chlorophenol [o-Chlorophenol]
Chlorotoluene [Benzyl Chloride]
m-Chlorotoluene
o-Chlorotoluene
p-Chlorotoluene
Cresol (Technical) [Methylphenol]
o-Cresol [2-Methylphenol]
p-Cresol [4-Methylphenol]
Dibenzofuran
1,2-Dichlorobenzene [o-Dichlorobenzene]
1,3-Dichlorobenzene [m-Dichlorobenzene]
1,4-Dichlorobenzene [p-Dichlorobenzene]
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Dichlorotoluene [Benzal Chloride]
Diethylstilbestrol [DES]
2,4-Dimethylphenol [as-m-Xylenol]
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
92-52-4
71-43-2
108-86-1
108-90-7
59-50-7
95-57-8
100-44-7
108-41-8
95-49-8
106-43-4
1319-77-3
95-48-7
106-44-5
95-50-1
541-73-1
106-46-7
120-83-2
98-87-3
56-53-1
1300-71-6
99-65-0
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HSL
HSL
HSL
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
7.50E+00
1.75E+03
4.46E+02
4.66E+02
3.85E+03
2.90E+04
3.30E+03
4.80E+01
7.20E+01
4.40E+01
3.10E+04
2.50E+04
1.00E+02
1.23E+02
7.90E+01
4.60E+03
2.50E+00
9.60E-03
4.20E+03
4.70E+02
E
A
E
A
C
C
A
D
C
D
A
J
A
A
A
A
D
A
C
A
6.00E-02
9.52E+01
4.14E+00
1.17E+01
5.00E-02
1 .80E+00
1.00E+00
4.60E+00
2.70E+00
4.50E+00
2.40E-01
2.43E-01
1.14E-01
1.00E+00
2.28E+00
1.18E+00
5.90E-02
3.00E-01
6.21E-02
G
A
0
A
C
C
A
C
C
C
A
0
0
A
A
A
A
C
H
1.50E-03
5.59E-03
1.92E-03
3.72E-03
2.44E-06
1.05E-05
5.06E-05
1.60E-02
6.25E-03
1.70E-02
1.10E-06
1.50E-06
1.90E-03
3.59E-03
2.89E-03
2.75E-06
2.54E-02
2.38E-06
G
A
X
A
X
X
A
X
X
X
A
X
A
A
A
A
X
X
8.30E+01
1.50E+02
3.30E+02
4.90E+02
4.00E+02
5.00E+01
1.20E+03
1.60E+03
1.20E+03
5.00E+02
1.70E+03
1.70E+03
1.70E+03
3.80E+02
9.90E+03
2.80E+01
2.22E+02
1.50E+02
A
P
Q
C
C
B
D
D
D
A
A
A
A
A
D
B
C
B
7.54E+03
1.32E+02
9.00E+02
6.92E+02
9.80E+02
1.45E+02
4.27E+02
1.90E+03
2.60E+03
2.00E+03
9.33E+01
8.91 E+01
8.51 E+01
1.32E+04
3.98E+03
3.98E+03
3.98E+03
7.94E+02
1.60E+04
2.88E+05
2.63E+02
4.17E+01
E
A
E
A
C
C
A
C
C
C
A
M
M
M
A
A
A
A
D
A
C
A
Notes: PP= Priority Pollutant; HSL = Hazardous Substance List Parameter; HPP = PP and HSL Parameters.
Additional notes and data references are provided at end of this table.
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
A-4
-------
Table A-1. Water Solubility, Vapor Pressure, Henry's Law Constant, Koc, and Kow Data for Selected Chemicals.
Chemical Name
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,3-Dinotrotoluene
2,4-Dinotrotoluene
2,5-Dinotrotoluene
2, 6- Di notrotoluene
3,4- Di notrotoluene
Ethylbenzene [Phenylethane]
Hexachlorobenzene [Perchlorobenzene]
Hexachlorophene [Dermadex]
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol [o-Nitrophenol]
4-Nitrophenol [p-Nitrophenol]
m- Nitrotoluene [Methylnitrobenzene]
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloronitrobenzene [Quintozene]
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Pyridine
Styrene [Ethenylbenzene]
1 ,2, 3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,3,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2, 3,4, 6-Tetrachlorophenol
Toulene [Methylbenzene]
1 , 2, 3-Trichlorobenzene
1 , 2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,3,5-Trichlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene [Pseudocumene]
Xylene (mixed)
m-Xylene [1,3-Dimethylbenzene]
o-Xylene [1,2-Dimentylbenzene]
p-Xylene [1,4-Dimethylbenzene]
CAS n
534-52-1
51-28-5
602-01-7
121-14-2
619-15-8
606-20-2
610-39-9
100-41-4
118-74-1
70-30-4
98-95-3
88-75-5
100-07-7
99-08-1
608-93-5
82-68-8
87-86-5
108-95-2
110-86-1
100-42-5
634-66-2
95-94-3
58-90-2
108-88-3
87-61-6
120-82-1
108-70-3
95-95-4
88-06-2
95-63-6
1330-20-7
108-38-3
95-47-6
106-42-3
EPA
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HSL
HPP
HPP
HSL
HPP
HSL
Water
Solubility
(mg/l)
2.90E+02
5.60E+03
3.10E+03
2.40E+02
1.32E+03
1.32E+03
1 .08E+03
1.52E+02
6.00E-03
4.00E-03
1.90E-03
2.10E+03
1 .60E+04
4.98E+02
1.35E-01
7.11E-02
1 .40E+01
9.30E+04
1.00E+06
3.00E+02
3.50E+00
2.40E+00
6.00E+00
7.00E+00
5.35E+02
1.20E+01
3.00E+01
5.80E+00
1.19E+03
8.00E+02
5.76E+01
1 .98E+02
1.30E+02
1 .75E+02
1.98E+02
Ref
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
H
H
G
A
A
A
A
A
R
C
C
A
C
A
C
A
C
A
A
G
A
A
A
A
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Hg)
5.00E-02
1.49E-05
5.10E-03
1.80E-02
7.00E+00
1.09E-05
1.50E-01
6.00E-03
1.13E-04
1.10E-04
3.41E-01
2.00E+01
4.50E+00
4.00E-02
7.00E-02
5.40E-03
4.60E-03
2.81 E+01
2.10E-01
2.90E-01
5.80E-01
1.00E+01
1.20E-02
2.03E+00
1.00E+01
1.00E+01
6.60E+00
1.00E+01
Ref
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
R
C
C
0
C
A
C
A
C
A
A
0
A
A
G
A
Henry's Law
Constant
(atm-m3/mol)
4.49E-05
6.45E-10
5.09E-06
3.27E-06
6.43E-03
6.81 E-04
2.20E-05
6.18E-04
2.75E-06
4.54E-07
2.05E-03
6.37E-03
4.23E-03
2.31E-03
2.39E-02
2.18E-04
3.90E-06
5.57E-03
7.04E-03
1.07E-02
5.10E-03
7.05E-03
Ref
A
A
A
A
A
A
G
A
A
A
X
A
X
A
X
A
A
X
A
X
G
X
Koc
(ml/g)
2.40E+02
1.66E+01
5.30E+01
4.50E+01
8.40E+01
9.20E+01
9.40+E01
1.10E+03
3.90E+03
9.10E+04
3.60E+01
1.30E+04
1.90E+04
5.30E+04
1.42E+01
1.80E+04
1.78E+04
1.60E+03
9.80E+01
3.00E+02
7.40E+03
9.20E+03
6.20E+03
8.90E+01
2.00E+03
2.40E+02
9.82E+02
8.30E+02
8.70E+02
Ref
A
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
A
B
A
B
B
A
A
D
D
B
B
A
D
A
D
B
A
B
D
D
D
Kow
5.01 E+02
3.16E+01
1.95E+02
1.00E+02
1.90E+02
1.00E+02
1.95E+02
1.41E+03
1.70E+05
3.47E+07
7.08E+01
5.75E+01
8.13E+01
2.92E+02
1.55E+05
2.82E+05
1.00E+05
2.88E+01
4.57E+00
2.88E+04
2.88E+04
4.68E+04
1.26E+04
5.37E+02
1.29E+04
2.00E+04
1.41E+04
5.25E+03
7.41 E+03
1.83E+03
1.82E+03
8.91 E+02
1.4E1+03
Ref
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
H
H
M
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
A
A
A
C
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
Acenaphthylene 208-96-8 HPP 3.93E+00 A 2.90E-02 A 1.48E-03 A 2.50E+03 A 5.01 E+03 A
Acenapthene 83-32-9 HPP 3.42E+00 A 1.55E-03 A 9.20E-05 A 4.60E+03 A 1.00E+04 A
Anthracene 120-12-7 HPP 4.50E-02 A 1.95E-04 A 1.02E-03 A 1.40E+04 A 2.82E+04 A
Notes: PP= Priority Pollutant; HSL = Hazardous Substance List Parameter; HPP = PP and HSL Parameters.
Additional notes and data references are provided at end of this table.
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
A-5
-------
Table A-1. Water Solubility, Vapor Pressure, Henry's Law Constant, Koc, and Kow Data for Selected Chemicals.
Water Vapor
Solubility Pressure
Chemical Name CAS # EPA (mg/l) Ref (mm Hg)
Benz(c)acridine
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
2-Chloronapthalene
Chrysene
1 , 2, 7, 8- Dibenzopyrene
Dibenz(a, h)anthracene
7,2-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene [2,3-Benzidene]
Indene
Indeno(1,2, 3-cd)pyrene
2-Methylnapthalene
Napthalene [Napthene]
1-Napthylamine
2-Napthylamine
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Tetracene [Napthacene]
AMINES AND AMIDES
2-Acetylaminofluorene
Acrylamide [2-Propenamide]
4-Aminobiphenyl [p-Biphenylamine]
Aniline [Benzenamine]
Auramine
Benzidine [p-diaminodiphenyl]
2,4-Diaminotoluene [Toluenediamine]
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Diethanolamine
Diethylaniline [Benzenamine]
Diethylnitrosamine [Nitrosodiethylamine]
Dimethylamine
Di methylami noazobenzene
Dimethylnitrosamine
Diphenylnitrosamine
Dipropylnitrosamine
225-51-4
56-55-3
50-32-8
205-99-2
191-24-2
207-08-9
91-58-7
218-01-9
189-55-9
53-70-3
57-97-6
206-44-0
86-73-7
95-13-6
193-99-5
91-57-6
91-20-3
134-32-7
91-59-8
85-01-8
129-00-0
92-24-0
53-96-3
79-06-1
92-67-1
62-53-3
2465-27-2
92-87-5
95-80-7
91-94-1
111-42-2
91-66-7
55-18-5
124-40-3
60-11-7
62-75-9
86-30-6
621-64-7
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HSL
HPP
HPP
HPP
HSL
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
PP
1 .40E+01
5.70E-03
1.20E-03
1.40E-02
7.00E-04
4.30E-03
6.74E+00
1.80E-03
1.01E-01
5.00E-04
4.40E-03
2.06E-01
1.69E+00
5.30E-04
2.54E+01
3.17E+01
2.35E+03
5.86E+02
1.00E+00
1.32E-01
5.00E-04
6.50E+00
2.05E+06
8.42E+02
3.66E+04
2.10E+00
4.00E+02
4.77E+04
4.00E+00
9.54E+05
6.70E+02
1.00E+06
1.36E+01
infinite
9.90E+03
A
A
A
A
A
A
I
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
E
G
A
A
A
A
E
A
G
A
G
A
A
A
A
G
E
A
A
A
A
2.20E-08
5.60E-09
5.00E-07
1.03E-10
5.10E-07
1.70E-02
6.30E-09
1.00E-10
5.00E-06
7.10E-04
1.00E-10
2.30E-01
6.50E-05
2.56E-04
6.80E-04
2.50E-06
7.00E-03
6.00E-05
3.00E-01
5.00E-04
3.80E-05
1.00E-05
5.00E+00
1.52E+03
3.30E-07
8.10E+00
4.00E-01
Ref
A
A
A
A
A
I
A
A
A
A
A
G
A
A
A
A
R
A
G
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Henry's Law
Constant
(atm-m3/mol)
1.16E-06
1.55E-06
1.19E-05
5.34E-08
3.94E-05
4.27E-04
1.05E-06
7.33E-08
6.46E-06
6.42E-05
6.86E-08
1.15E-03
5.21E-09
8.23E-08
1.59E-04
5.04E-06
3.19E-10
1.59E-08
1.00E-06
3.03E-07
1.28E-10
8.33E-07
9.02E-05
7.19E-09
7.90E-07
6.92E-06
Ref
A
A
A
A
A
X
A
A
A
A
A
G
A
A
A
A
X
A
X
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Koc
(ml/g)
1.00E+03
1.38E+06
5.50E+06
5.50E+05
1.60E+06
5.50E+05
2.00E+05
1.20E+03
3.30E+06
4.76E+05
3.80E+04
7.30E+03
1.60E+06
8.50E+03
1.30E+03
6.10E+01
1.30E+02
1.40E+04
3.80E+04
6.50E+05
1.60E+03
1.07E+02
2.90E+03
1.05E+01
1.20E+01
1.55E+03
4.35E+02
1.00E+03
1.00E-01
1.50E+01
Ref
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
E
C
B
B
A
A
E
B
B
B
A
B
A
F
B
A
A
Kow
3.63E+04
3.98E+05
1.15E+06
1.15E+06
3.24E+06
1.15E+06
1.32E+04
4.07E+05
4.17E+06
6.31E+06
8.71 E+06
7.94E+04
1.58E+04
8.32E+02
3.16E+06
1.30E+04
2.76E+03
1.17E+02
1.17E+02
2.88E+04
7.59E+04
8.00E+05
1.91E+03
6.03E+02
7.00E+00
1.45E+04
2.00E+01
2.24E+00
3.16E+03
3.72E-02
9.00E+00
3.02E+00
4.17E-01
5.25E+03
2.09E-01
3.72E+02
3.16E+01
Ref
A
A
A
A
A
A
I
A
A
A
A
A
A
M
A
E
C
A
A
A
A
E
A
A
E
A
A
A
A
M
E
A
A
A
A
I
A
Notes: PP= Priority Pollutant; HSL = Hazardous Substance List Parameter; HPP = PP and HSL Parameters.
Additional notes and data references are provided at end of this table.
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
A-6
-------
Table A-1. Water Solubility, Vapor Pressure, Henry's Law Constant, Koc, and Kow Data for Selected Chemicals.
Water Vapor
Solubility Pressure
Chemical Name CAS # EPA (mg/l) Ref (mm Hg)
Methylvinylnitrosamine
m-Nitroaniline [3-Nitroaniline]
o-Nitroaniline [2-Nitroaniline]
p-Nitroaniline [4-Nitroaniline]
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Thioacetamide [Ethanethioamide]
o-Toluidine Hydrochloride
o-Toluidine [2-Aminotoluene]
Triethylamine
ETHERS AND ALCOHOLS
Allyl Alcohol [Propenol]
Anisole [Methoxybenzene]
Benzyl Alcohol [Benzenemethanol]
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(chloromethyl)ether
4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether
2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether
Chloromethyl Methyl Ether
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether
Diphenylether [Phenyl Ether]
Ethanol
PHTHALATES
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butylbenzyl Phthalate
Di-n-octyl Phthalate
Dibutyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Dimethylphthalate
KETONES AND ALDEHYDES
2-Butanone [Methyl Ethyl Ketone]
2-Hexanone [Methyl Butyl Ketone]
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone [Isopropylacetone]
Acetone [2-Propanone]
Formaldehyde
Glyciadaldehyde
Acrylic Acid [2-Propenoic Acid]
4549-40-0
99-09-2
88-74-4
100-01-6
621-64-7
62-55-5
636-21-5
119-93-7
121-44-8
107-18-6
100-66-3
100-51-6
111-44-4
108-60-1
542-88-1
101-55-3
110-75-8
107-30-2
7005-72-3
101-84-8
64-17-5
117-81-7
85-68-7
117-84-0
84-74-2
84-66-2
131-11-3
78-93-3
591-78-6
108-10-1
67-64-1
50-00-0
765-34-4
79-10-7
HSL
HSL
HSL
HSL
HSL
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HSL
HSL
HSL
HSL
7.60E+05
8.90E+02
1 .47E+04
7.30E+02
1.63E+05
1 .50E+04
7.35E+01
1.50E+04
5.10E+05
1.52E+03
8.00E+02
1.02E+04
1 .70E+03
2.20E+04
1.50E+04
3.30E+00
2.10E+01
infinite
2.85E-01
4.22E+01
3.00E+00
1.30E+01
8.96E+02
4.32E+03
2.68E+05
1 .40E+04
1 .70E+04
infinite
4.00E+05
1.70E+08
infinite
A
G
T
T
J
A
A
G
A
C
s
A
A
A
H
H
R
A
C
G
H
A
A
H
A
R
S
A
A
A
A
1.23E+01
1.00E-01
<1.0E+00
7.00E+00
2.46E+01
2.60E+00
1.10E-01
7.10E-01
8.50E-01
3.00E+01
1.50E-03
2.67E+01
2.70E-03
2.13E-02
7.40E+02
2.00E-07
1.00E-05
3.50E-03
<1.0E-02
7.75E+01
3.00E+10
2.00E+01
2.70E+02
1.00E+01
1.97E+01
4.00E+00
Ref
A
A
R
G
A
C
S
A
A
A
I
H
I
S
A
C
A
A
H
A
R
R
A
A
A
A
Henry's Law
Constant
(atm-m3/mol)
1.83E-06
9.39E-07
1.30E+05
3.69E-06
2.43E-04
1.95E-05
1.31E-05
1.13E-04
2.06E-04
2.50E-04
2.19E-04
8.67E-09
4.48E-05
3.61 E-07
2.82E-07
1.14E-06
2.74E-05
2.82E-05
1.55E-04
2.06E-05
9.87E-07
1.10E-08
Ref
A
A
G
A
X
X
A
A
A
Q
X
X
A
X
A
A
A
R
X
A
A
A
Koc
(ml/g) Ref
2.50E+00 B 5,
2.
6.
2.
3,
2.20E+01 B 1.
4.10E+02 B 7.
3.20E+00 B 6,
2.00E+01 C 1.
1.
1.39E+01 A 3.
6.10E+01 A 1.
1.20E+00 A 2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.20E+00 B 4.
5.90E+03 D 9.
6.
1.
1.70E+05 A 3.
1.42E+02 A 3.
1.
4.50E+00 B 1.
2.20E+00 B 5,
3.60E+00 B 1.
1.00E-01 B 2,
1.
Kow
.89E-01
,34E+01
,17E+01
,45E+01
.47E-01
,95E+01
,58E+02
.03E-01
,29E+02
,26E+01
,16E+01
,26E+02
,40E+00
,91E+04
,90E+01
,OOE+00
,20E+04
,62E+04
J9E+01
,50E+03
,31E+04
,58E+09
,98E+05
,16E+02
,32E+02
,82E+00
.75E-01
,OOE+00
.82E-02
,35E+00
Ref
A
M
M
M
A
A
A
A
C
M
A
A
A
I
I
A
H
M
A
C
H
I
A
A
I
A
A
A
A
A
Notes: PP= Priority Pollutant; HSL = Hazardous Substance List Parameter; HPP = PP and HSL Parameters.
Additional notes and data references are provided at end of this table.
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
A-7
-------
Table A-1. Water Solubility, Vapor Pressure, Henry's Law Constant, Koc, and Kow Data for Selected Chemicals.
Chemical Name
CARBOXYLIC ACIDS AND ESTERS
Azaserine
Benzoic Acid
Dimethyl Sulfate [DMS]
Ethyl Methanesulfonate [EMS]
Formic Acid
Lasiocarpine
Methyl Methacrylate
Vinyl Acetate
PCBs
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
Polychlorinated Biphenyls [PCBs]
HETEROCYCLIC COMPOUNDS
Dihydrosafrole
1,4-Dioxane [1,4-Diethylene Dioxide]
Epichlorohydrin
Isosafrole
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
Safrole
Uracil Mustard
HYDRAZINES
1,2-Diethylhydrazine
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine
1 , 2 - Di phenylhyd razi ne [Hydrazobenzene]
Hydrazine
MISCELLANEOUS ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Aziridine [Ethylenimine]
Carbon Disulfide
CAS n
115-02-6
65-85-0
77-78-1
62-50-0
64-18-6
303-34-4
80-62-6
108-05-4
12674-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
53469-21-6
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
1336-36-3
94-58-6
123-91-1
106-89-8
120-58-1
100-75-4
930-55-2
94-59-7
66-75-1
1615-80-1
57-14-4
122-66-7
302-01-1
151-56-4
75-15-0
EPA
HSL
HSL
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
HPP
PP
HSL
Water
Solubility
(mg/l)
1.36E+05
2.70E+03
3.24E+05
3.69E+05
1.00E+06
1.60E+03
2.00E+01
2.00E+04
4.20E-01
1.50E+01
1 .45E+00
2.40E-01
5.40E-02
1.20E-02
2.70E-03
3.10E-02
1.50E+03
4.31 E+05
6.00E+04
1 .09E+03
1.90E+06
7.00E+06
1.50E+03
6.41 E+02
2.88E+07
1.24E+08
1.84E+03
3.41 E+08
2.66E+06
2.94E+03
Ref
A
G
A
A
A
A
A
J
H
I
I
G
G
G
G
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Vapor
Pressure
(mm Hg)
6.80E-01
2.06E-01
4.00E+01
3.70E+01
4.00E-04
6.70E-03
4.06E-03
4.10E-04
4.90E-04
7.70E-05
4.10E-05
7.70E-05
3.99E+01
1.57E+01
1.60E-08
1.40E-01
1.10E-01
9.10E-04
1.57E+02
2.60E-05
1 .40E+01
2.55E+02
3.60E+02
Ref
A
A
A
A
I
I
I
G
G
G
G
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Henry's Law
Constant
(atm-m3/mol)
3.48E-07
9.12E-08
2.43E-01
5.60E-04
3.50E-03
2.70E-03
7.10E-03
1.07-E03
1.07E-05
3.19E-05
3.25E-12
1.11E-08
2.07E-09
1.29E-07
1.00E-07
3.42E-09
1.73E-09
5.43E-06
1.23E-02
Ref
A
A
A
G
G
G
G
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Koc
(ml/g)
6.60E+00
4.10E+00
3.80E+00
7.60E+01
8.40E+02
4.25E+04
5.30E+05
7.80E+01
3.50E+00
1.00E+01
9.30E+01
1.50E+00
8.00E-01
7.80E+01
1.20E+02
3.00E-01
2.00E-01
4.18E+02
1.00E-01
1.30E+00
5.40E+01
Ref
B
B
B
B
B
E
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
Kow
8.32E-02
7.41 E+01
5.75E-02
1.62E+00
2.88E-01
9.77E+00
6.17E+00
2.40E+04
1.23E+04
1.58E+03
1.29E+04
5.62E+05
1.07E+06
1.38E+07
1.10E+06
3.63E+02
1.02E+00
1.41E+00
4.57E+02
3.24E-01
8.71 E-02
3.39E+02
8.13E-02
2.09E-02
3.80E-03
7.94E+02
8.32E-04
9.77E-02
1.00E+02
Ref
A
M
A
A
A
A
A
H
H
I
I
I
I
I
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Notes: PP= Priority Pollutant; HSL = Hazardous Substance List Parameter; HPP = PP and HSL Parameters.
Additional notes and data references are provided at end of this table.
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
A-8
-------
Table A-1. Water Solubility, Vapor Pressure, Henry's Law Constant, Koc, and Kow Data for Selected Chemicals.
Water Vapor
Solubility Pressure
Chemical Name CAS # EPA (mg/l) Ref (mm Hg)
Diethyl Arsine
Dimethylcarbamoyl Chloride
Mercury and Compounds (Alkyl)
Methylnitrosourea
Mustard Gas [bis(2-chloroethyl)sulfide]
Phenobarbital
Propylenimine
Tetraethyl Lead
Thiourea [Thiocarbamide]
Tris-BP [2,3-Dibromo1propanol phospate]
INORGANICS
Ammonia
Antimony and Compounds
Arsenic and Compounds
Barium and Compounds
Beryllium and Compounds
Cadmium and Compounds
Chromium III and Compounds
Chromium VI and Compounds
Copper and Compounds
Cyanogen Chloride
Hydrogen Cyanide
Hydrogen Sulfide
Lead and Compounds
Mercury and Compounds (Inorganic)
Nickel and Compounds
Potassium Cyanide
Selenium and Compounds
Silver and Compounds
Sodium Cyanide
Thallium Chloride
Thallium Sulfate
Thallium and Compounds
Zinc and Compounds
692-42-2
79-44-7
7349-97-6
684-93-5
505-60-2
50-06-6
75-55-8
78-00-2
62-56-6
126-72-7
7664-41-7
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7740-43-9
7440-47-3
7440-47-3
7440-50-8
506-77-4
74-90-8
7783-06-4
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
151-50-8
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
143-33-9
7791-12-0
7446-18-6
7440-28-0
7440-66-6
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
4.17E+02
1 .44E+07
6.89E+08
8.00E+02
1 .OOE+03
9.44E+05
8.00E-01
1.72E+06
1.20E+02
5.30E+05
2.50E+03
infinite
4.13E+03
3.00E-02
5.00E+05
8.20E+05
2.90E+03
2.00E+02
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
G
A
A
A
A
3.50E+01
1.95E+00
1.70E-01
1.41E+02
1.50E-01
7.60E+03
1.00E+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
1 .OOE+03
6.20E+02
1 .52E+04
O.OOE+00
2.00E-03
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
Henry's Law
Constant
Ref (atm-m3/mol)
A 1 .48E-02
A 1.92E-08
A 4.45E-05
A 1.12E-05
A 7.97E-02
A 3.21 E-04
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A 3.24E-02
A
R 1.65E-01
A
A 1.10E-02
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Koc
Ref (ml/g) Ref Kow Ref
A 1.60E+02 B 9.33E+02 A
A 5.00E-01 B 4.79E-02 A
1.00E-01 B 1.54E-04 A
A 1.10E+02 B 2.34E+01 A
9.80E+01 B 6.46E-01 A
A 2.30E+00 B 3.31E-01 A
A 4.90E+03 B
1.60E+00 B 8.91 E-03 A
3.10E+02 B 1.32E+04 A
A 3.10E+00 B 1.00E+00 A
X 1.00E+00 A
5.62E-01 A
R
G
Notes: PP= Priority Pollutant; HSL = Hazardous Substance List Parameter; HPP = PP and HSL Parameters.
Additional notes and data references are provided at end of this table.
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
A-9
-------
Table A-2. Specific Gravity and Viscosity Data for Selected Petroleum Products.
Petroleum Product
Crude Oil
Gasoline
Kerosene
Naptha
No. 1-D Diesel Fuel
No.2-D Diesel Fuel
No.4-D Diesel Fuel
Marine Diesel Fuel
Jet A Aviation Gas
Jet B Aviation Gas
80 Grade Aviation Gas
100 Grade Aviation Gas
100LL Grade Aviation Gas
Jet Fuel JP-1
Jet Fuel JP-3
Jet Fuel JP-4
Jet Fuel JP-5
No.1 Gas Turbine Fuel Oil
No.2 Gas Turbine Fuel Oil
No.3 Gas Turbine Fuel Oil
No.4 Gas Turbine Fuel Oil
No.1 Fuel Oil
No.2 Fuel Oil
No.4 (Light) Fuel Oil
No.4 Fuel Oil
No.5 (Light) Fuel Oil
No.5 Fuel Oil
No.6 Fuel Oil
Aero Oil Grade 100
Aero Oil Grade 120
Aero Oil Grade 20W-50
Aviation Oil Grade 100
Aviation Oil Grade 120
SAE 10W Motor Oil
SAE 30 Motor Oil
SAE 40 Motor Oil
SAE 50 Motor Oil
SAE 5W-30 Motor Oil
SAE 10W-30 Motor Oil
SAE 10W-40 Motor Oil
SAE 15W-40 Motor Oil
SAE 15W-50 Motor Oil
SAE 20W-20 Motor Oil
Auto Transmission Fluid
Tractor Hydraulic Fluid
Specific
Gravity
@15-25 deg.C.
0.7 - 1.0
0.73-0.76
0.81
0.85-0.97
0.80-0.82
0.85
0.83
0.77-0.84
0.75-0.80
0.70
0.70
0.71
0.80
0.80
0.81
0.82
0.850
0.876
0.81-0.85
0.86-0.88
0.876
0.87-1.01
0.92-1.04
0.94-1.05
0.877
0.887
0.892
0.897
0.869
0.870
0.880
0.874
0.883
0.895
0.894
SSSSS Kinematic Viscosity Values in Centistokes SSSSS SS Absolute Viscosity Values in Centipoise SS
Refs
A
A,D
D
D
C
C
B
F
F
G
G
G
J
J
J
J
F
F
D,F,G
D,F,G
F
D,G
D,G
D,G
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
G
G
@ 10
deg.C.
1400.
2500.
3000.
2000.
3200.
205.
950.
1500.
2500.
220.
220.
430.
800.
650.
500.
150.
310.
020
Ref deg.C.
I 650.
I 1100.
I 1200.
I 850.
I 1400.
I 110.
I 420.
I 650.
I 1000.
I 145.
I 145.
I 245.
I 400.
I 350.
I 240.
I 87.
I 160.
@40
Ref deg.C.
1.3-2.4
1.9-4.1
5.5-24.
1.3-2.4
1.9-4.1
>5.5
>5.5
1.4-2.2
2.0-3.6
2.0-5.8
5.5-24.0
>24.0-58
>58-168
I 193.
I 296.
I 189.
I 224.
I 329.
I 41-43
I 107-134
I 147-188
I 234-250
I 59.
I 64.
I 95.
I 120.
I 121.
I 73.
I 35-36
I 54.
Ref
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
O100 @10
deg.C. Ref deg.C. Ref
8-87 B
28000000 B
20.2 G
23.4 G
19. G
19.1 G
24. G
7. G 179.
11-13 G 840.
15. G 1310.
19. G 2240.
11.9 G
11.7 G 190.
15.9 G 370.
15.0 G 700.
18.0 G 570.
9.0 G 440.
5.9-7.1 G 130.
7.7 G 280.
@ 20 deg.
deg.C. Ref Value @ C.
1.6-739. 38
0.45 L 0.3 38
2.05 E
1.1-1.9 40
1.6-3.5 40
10. 38
1.0-1.5 38
1.1-2.0 40
1.7-3.6 40
1.2-1.8 40
5.92 E 1.7-3.2 40
1.7-5.1 40
12.6 E 4.8-24.2 40
76. 50
60.-150. 38
52.3 E
352. E
570.
880. E
130.
210.
350.
310.
210.
80.
140.
Ref
D
C
•
.
B
C
.
•
•
•
•
•
G
A
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
A-10
-------
Table A-2. Specific Gravity and Viscosity Data for Selected Petroleum Products.
Petroleum Product
Aviation Hydraulic Fluid
Grades A & E
AW Hydraulic Oil Grade 32
AW Hydraulic Oil Grade 46
AW Hydraulic Oil Grade 68
AW Hydraulic Oil Gr. 100
AW Hydraulic Oil Gr. 150
AW Hydraulic Oil Grade MV
AW Machine Oil Grade 10
AW Machine Oil Grade 22
AW Machine Oil Grade 32
AW Machine Oil Grade 46
AW Machine Oil Grade 68
AW Machine Oil Grade 100
AW Machine Oil Grade 150
AW Machine Oil Grade 220
AW Machine Oil Grade 320
Cylinder Oil Grade 460X
Cylinder Oil Grade 680X
Cylinder Oil Grade 1000X
Edger Arbor Oil X
EP Industrial Oil Gr. 46X
EP Industrial Oil Gr. 100X
EP Industrial Oil Gr. 150X
EP Industrial Oil Gr. 220X
EP Industrial Oil Gr. 320X
EP Industrial Oil Gr. 460X
Lubricating Oil Grade 32X
Lubricating Oil Gr. 100X
Lubricating Oil Gr. 105X
Lubricating Oil Gr. 460X
Turbine Oil Grade 32
Turbine Oil Grade 46
Turbine Oil Grade 68
Turbine Oil Grade 100
Heat Transfer Oil Grade 1
Heat Transfer Oil Gr. 20
Marine Oil Grade 150X
Marine Oil Grade 220X
Cutting Oil MW Fluid 11A
Cutting Oil MW Fluid 11D
Cutting Oil MW Fluid 21D
Cutting Oil MW Fluid 31A
Cutting Oil MW Fluid 31B
Cutting Oil MW Fluid 31C
Specific
Gravity
@15-25 deg.C.
Refs
S S S S S Kinematic Viscosity Values in Centistokes S S S S S
@ 10 @20 @40 @ 100
deg.C. Ref deg.C. Ref deg.C. Ref deg.C.
Ref
S S Absolute Viscosity Values in Centipoise S S
@ 10 @20 deg.
deg.C. Ref deg.C. Ref Value @ C.
Ref
0.873
0.863
0.867
0.870
0.885
0.886
0.884
0.871
0.877
0.877
0.878
0.878
0.881
0.883
0.888
0.894
0.910
0.922
0.922
0.906
0.872
0.878
0.883
0.889
0.903
0.900
0.871
0.887
0.884
0.892
0.864
0.875
0.877
0.880
0.882
0.857
0.928
0.934
0.829
0.921
0.891
0.916
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
K
K
K
K
150. I
250. I
390. I
650. I
1000. I
125. I
32. I
90. I
150. I
250. I
390. I
650. I
1000. I
1850. I
3000. I
5200. I
9500. I
17000. I
215. I
250. I
650. I
1000. I
1850. I
3000. I
5200. I
150. I
650. I
700. I
5200. I
150. I
250. I
390. I
650. I
230. I
85. I
2000. I
2400. I
200. I
180. I
92. I
97. I
200. I
80. I
130. I
200. I
310. I
470. I
70. I
20. I
50. I
80. I
130. I
200. I
310. I
470. I
800. I
1300. I
2000. I
3200. I
5500. I
108. I
130. I
310. I
470. I
800. I
1300. I
2000. I
80. I
310. I
330. I
2000. I
80. I
130. I
200. I
310. I
120. I
48. I
790. I
960. I
108. I
92. I
52. I
52. I
105. I
13.5
31.5
44.0
65.0
96.0
138.2
30.0
9.6
21.
30.
43.
64.
94.
140.
210.
305.
440.
650.
950.
36.
44.
95.
140.
210.
304.
440.
29.
92.
90.
440.
31.
44.
65.
94.
42.
20.0
168.
220.
40.
4.23
31.
21.
20
35.
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G.
G
5.5
6.6
8.8
11.0
14.1
5.9
2.5
4.1
5.2
6.5
8.4
10.8
14.
18.3
23.4
26.4
33.2
39.4
5.3
6.5
10.7
13.9
18.2
23.2
28.5
5.2
10.7
10.5
29.5
5.4
6.6
8.5
10.7
6.6
4.04
12.7
17.
6.6
4.7
4.3
3.7
5.3
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
129.
217. •
339. •
575.
886.
110.
28. •
79.
132.
220.
342.
573. •
883. •
1640.
2680. •
4730.
8760.
15700.
195.
218. •
571.
883.
1640.
2710.
4680. •
131. •
577. •
619. •
4640.
130.
219.
342. •
572.
203.
73.
1860.
2240. •
166.
82.
183.
69.
113.
174.
274.
416.
62.
17.
44.
70.
114.
176.
273.
415.
710.
1160.
1790.
2950.
5070.
98.
113.
272.
415.
711.
1170.
1800.
70.
275.
292.
1780.
69.
114.
175.
273.
106.
41.
733.
205.
85.
46.
96.
3.51
40
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
A-11
-------
Table A-2. Specific Gravity and Viscosity Data for Selected Petroleum Products.
Petroleum Product
Cutting Oil MW Fluid 41 B
Cutting Oil MW Fluid 41 D
Cutting Oil MW Fluid 41 E
Cutting Oil MW Fluid 41 M
Cutting Oil MW Fluid 43B
Cutting Oil MW Fluid 44A
Cutting Oil MW Fluid 45A
Cutting Oil MW Fluid 45B
Refrigeration Oil Gr. 32
Refrigeration Oil Gr. 68
RPM Chain Bar Oil Gr. 150
RPM Chain Bar Oil Gr. 220
SAE 75W-90 Arctic Gear Oil
SAE Grade 90 Gear Oil
SAE Grade 140 Gear Oil
NL Gear Lubricant Gr. 68
NL Gear Lubricant Gr. 100
NL Gear Lubricant Gr. 150
NL Gear Lubricant Gr. 220
NL Gear Lubricant Gr. 320
NL Gear Lubricant Gr. 460
NL Gear Lubricant Gr. 680
NL Gear Lubricant Gr.1000
NL Gear Lubricant Gr.1500
NL Gear Lubricant Gr.2200
Specific
Gravity
@15-25 deg.C.
0.907
0.914
0.897
0.898
0.908
0.894
0.925
0.936
0.894
0.910
0.888
0.902
0.874
0.876
0.896
0.888
0.893
0.989
S S S S S Kinematic Viscosity Values in Centistokes S S S S S
Refs
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
@ 10
deg.C.
120.
170.
145.
77.
170.
155.
210.
500.
190.
500.
1250.
1800.
400.
1800.
4900.
300.
650.
960.
1800.
3000.
5000.
9500.
12000.
22000.
020
Ref deg.C.
I 65.
I 85.
I 80.
I 45.
I 85.
I 82.
I 110.
I 230.
I 90.
I 230.
I 525.
I 800.
I 230.
I 800.
I 1900.
I 170.
I 310.
I 450.
I 800.
I 1300.
I 1900.
I 3300.
I 4500.
I 7500.
@40
Ref deg.C.
I 23.
I 30.
I 31.
I 19.
I 30.
I 29.
I 38.
I 67.
I 30.
I 65.
I 139.
I 212.
I 91.
I 231.
I 452.
I 63.
I 93.
I 142.
I 201.
I 304.
I 435.
I 640.
I 935.
I 1400.
2150.
Ref
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
0100
deg.C.
3.9
4.8
5.5
3.9
4.8
4.8
6.0
7.8
4.3
7.3
12.8
19.
14.6
18.8
30.3
10.0
11.0
14.3
17.8
22.0
27.5
33.5
53.2
59.8
Ref
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
S S Absolute Viscosity Values in Centipoise S S
@ 10
deg.C. Ref
109.
155.
130.
69.
154.
139.
194.
468.
170.
455.
1600.
4420.
262.
569.
860.
1600.
2680.
4490.
@ 20 deg.
deg.C. Ref Value @ C. Ref
59.
78.
72.
40.
77.
73.
102.
215.
80.
209.
710.
1710.
149.
272.
403.
710.
1160.
1710.
References and Notes:
A = CONCAWE, 4/79, Protection of Groundwater from Oil Pollution.
B = Payne, J.R., and C.R. Phillips, 1985, Petroleum Spills in the Marine Environment, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.
C = National Institute for Petroleum and Energy Research, 1988, Personal communication.
D = Breuel, A., 1981, Oil Spill Cleanup and Protection Techniques for Shorelines and Marshlands, Noyes Data, N.J.
E = Cole-Parmer Co., 1989-1990, Equipment Catalog.
F = ASTM, 1985, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 5, Petroleum Products, Lubricants, and Fossil Fuels, Philadelphia.
G = Chevron USA, Inc., 1988, Product Salesfax Digest, San Francisco.
H = Weast, R.C., (ed.), 1980-1981, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st Edition, Cleveland.
I = Values calculated using ASTM viscosity-temperature charts for liquid petroleum products (ASTM D 341-77).
J = U.S. Coast Guard, 1979, CHRIS Hazardous Chemical Data.
K = Chevron USA, Inc., 1989, Personal Communication.
L = Hunt, J.R., N. Sitar, and K.S. Udell, 1988, Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Transport and Cleanup 1. Analysis of Mechansims, in Water Resources
Research, Vol.24, No.8, pp.1247-1258.
* = Values calculated based on: Absolute Viscosity (centipoise) = Kinematic Viscosity (centistokes) X Specific Gravity.
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
A-12
-------
Table A-3. Density and Viscosity Data
Density Temp.
Chemical (g/cm3) C.
Acetaldehyde
Acetic Acid
Acetic Anhydride
Acetone [2-Propenone]
Acetonitrile [Methyl Cyanide]
Acetophenone
Acetyl Bromide
Acetyl Chloride
Acrolein [2, Propenal]
Acrylic Acid [2-Propenoic Acid]
Acrylonitrile [2-Propeneni tri le]
Adi poni tri le
Ally! Acetate
Ally! ami ne
2-Ami noethanol
1-Ami no-2-methyl propane
Ani 1 ine
Benzaldehyde
Benzene
Benzenethiol
Benzoni tri le
Benzophenone
Benzoyl Chloride
Benzyl Acetate
Benzyl Alcohol
Benzyl ami ne
Benzyl anil ine
Benzyl Benzoate
Benzyl Ether
Benzyl Ethyl Ether
Bicyclohexane
Bi s ( 2-c hi o roe thy!) ether
Bi s (2-ethyl hexyl ) phthal ate
Bis(2-methoxyethyl) ether
Bromine
2-Bromoani 1 ine [o-Bromoani 1 ine]
3-Bromoani 1 ine [m-Bromoani 1 ine]
4-Bromoani 1 ine [p-Bromoani 1 ine]
Bromobenzene
1-Bromobutane
2-Bromobutane
Bromodi chl oromethane
Bromoethane
Bromoethene
1-Bromohexane
1-Bromonapthal ene
1-Bromopropane
2-Bromopropane
o-Bromotol uene
1-Butanal
2-Butanal
1-Butanami ne
2-Butanami ne
1, 3-Butanediol
Butanenitri le
1-Butanethiol
Butanioc Acid
1-Butanol
2-Butanol
2-Butanone [Methyl Ethyl Ketone]
ci s-3-Butene-l, 4-diol
trans-2-Butene-l, 4-diol
2-Butoxyethanol
0.7780
1.0492
1.0811
0.7908
0.7822
1.0238
1.663
1.105
0.8389
1.0511
0.8060
0.950
0.9256
0.7629
1.0116
0.7297
1.0217
1.0447
1.8737
1.0766
1.0051
1.211
1.055
1.045
0.9813
1.1121
0.9478
0.8862
1.2130
0.9843
0.9440
1. 578
1. 579
1.4970
1.4882
1.2758
1.255
1.97
1.4708
1. 517
1.176
1.4834
1.3597
1.3222
1.422
0.8016
0.7891
0.7392
0.7246
1.0053
0.7954
0.8416
0.9582
0.8097
0.8069
0.8047
1.0740
1.0685
0.8964
20
20
20
20
20
25
16
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
25
20
20
25
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
20
20
25
20
25
20
20
99
25
20
20
20
15
20
20
20
15
15
20
20
20
20
20
20
15
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
for Selected Chemicals.
Absolute Temp.
Ref. Viscosity (cp) C.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
A
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
0.244
1.314
0.971
0.337
0.375
1.642
0.35
0.207
0.375
19.35
21.7
4.400
1.321
0.6028
1.239
1.447
4.79
1.399
7.760
1. 59
2.18
8.292
5.33
3.75
2.14
81.4
0.981
0.995
3.19
6.81
1.81
0.985
0.633
1.71
0.418
5.99
0. 539
0.536
0.455
0.681
130.3
0.624
0. 501
1.814
3.379
4.210
0.423
3.15
20
15
15
15
20
25
20
30
25
25
25
20
25
25
20
15
55
45
15
25
33
25
20
20
25
20
25
19
40
20
80
30
20
20
15
15
15
15
20
20
20
20
20
15
15
20
15
25
Ref.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
A
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
A-13
-------
Table A-3. Density and Viscosity Data for Selected Chemicals.
Temp Absolute Temp
chemi cal
Butyl Acetate
Butyl benzene
sec-Butyl benzene
tert-Butyl benzene
Butyl Ethyl Ether
Butyl Formate
Butyl Octyl Phthalate
Butyl oleate
Butyl Stearate
Butyri c Anhydri de
y-Butyl actone
D-Camphor
Carbon Disulfide
o-chloroani li ne
Chi orobenzene
l-chl orobutane
2-Chlorobutane
l-Chloro-2, 3-e poxy propane
Chi oroethane
2-Chloroethanol
Chloromethane [Methyl
l-Chloro-2-methylpropane
2-Chloro-2- methyl propane
l-chloronapthalene
l-chloropentane
o-chlorophenol
m-chl orophenol
p-chl orophenol
l-chloropropane
2-Chloropropane
3-Chloro-l-propene
Chi orotol uene (Benzyl
o-chlorotol uene
p-chlorotol uene
1, 8-Ci neol e
ci nnamal dehyde
o-Cresol
m-Cresol
p-Cresol
Crotonal dehyde (2-Butenal)
Cyclohexanami ne
Cyclohexane
Cycl ohexanol
Cycl ohexanone
Cyclohexene
Cyclohexyl benzene
Cycl opentane
p-Cymene
ci s-Decahydronapthalene
trans-Decahydronapthalene
Decane
1-Decanol
1-Decene
Diallyl Phthalate
Di benzyl ami ne
Di benzyl Ether
1. 2-Di bromoe thane
ci s-Di bromoethene
trans-l,2-Bi bromoethene
Di bromomethane
1, 2-Di bromotetrafl uo roe thane
Di butyl ami ne
Di butyl Ether
Densi ty
(g/cm3)
0.8813
0.8601
0.8621
0.8665
0.7495
0.8917
0.992
0.864
0.8540
0.9668
1.1254
0.9920
1.2628
1.2077
1.1063
0.8864
0.8732
1.1746
0.0903
1.2072
0.9159
0.8829
0.8414
1.1930
0.8840
1.2410
1.268
1.2651
0.8923
0.8617
0.9376
1.0993
1.0817
1.0697
0.9192
1.0497
1.0380
1.0140
0.8516
0.8671
0.7786
0.9416
0.9462
0.8110
0.9427
0.7454
0.8573
0.8967
0.8697
0.7301
0.8297
0.7408
1.117
1.0278
0.9974
2.1687
2.2464
2.2308
2.4921
2.163
0.7619
0.7646
C.
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
20
25
20
20
25
20
20
20
25
15
15
20
15
20
25
20
18
25
40
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
20
15
46
20
20
20
30
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
20
25
25
20
20
20
25
20
25
Ref .
A
A
A
A
A
A
c
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Vi scosi ty
(cp)
0.734
1.035
28.53
28.13
0.421
0.704
42.
8.26
1.615
1.7
0.363
0.925
0.799
0.469
0.439
1.03
0.279
3.913
0.449
0.471
0.543
2.940
0.580
2.250
11.55
6.018
0.372
0.335
0.347
1.400
4.49
24.67
5.607
1.662
0.980
41.07
2.453
0.650
3.681
0.439
3.402
3.381
2.128
0.928
0.805
9.
3.711
1.490
0.72
0.95
0.602
C.
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
25
20
25
78
25
20
15
15
25
10
15
15
15
15
25
20
45
25
45
15
15
15
20
40
15
46
20
20
30
15
20
0
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
35
30
25
20
30
Ref.
A
A
A
A
A
A
c
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
A-14
-------
Table A-3. Density
Chemical
Di butyl Maleate
Di butyl Phthalate
Di butyl Sebacate
1. 2-Dichlorobenzene
1, 3-Dichlorobenzene
i ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1, 1-Dichloroethane
1, 2-Dichloroethane
1, 1-Dichloroethene
1, 2-Dichloroethene (trans)
1, 2-Dichloroethene (cis)
Dichloromethane (Methylene Cl-)
1. 2-Dichloropropane
1, 3-Dichloropropane
2, 3-Dichloropropane
Diethanolamine
Di (2-ethyl hexyl) Adi pate
1, 1-Diethyoxyethane
Di ethyl ami ne
Di ethyl aniline
Di ethyl Carbonate
Di ethyl Ether
Di (2-ethyl hexyl) Phthalate
Di ethyl Maleate
Di ethyl Malonate
Di ethyl Oxalate
Di ethyl Phthalate
Di ethyl Sulfate
Di ethyl Sulfide
Di iodomethane
Diisoamyl Ether
Diisodecyl Phthalate
Diisononyl Phthalate
Diisopropylamine
Diisopropyl Ether
1, 2-Dimethoxybenzene
1, 2-Dimethoxyethane
Di (methoxyeihyl) Phthalate
Di methoxymethane
N, N -Dimethyl ace tamide
Dimethyl ami ne
N, N-Dimethylani li ne
2, 2 -Dimethyl butane
2, 3-Dimethylbutane
2, 2-Di methyl -1 -butanol
2, 3-Di methyl -1 -butanol
3, 3-Dimethyl-2-butanol
N , N-Di methyl f ormami de
Dimethyl Maleate
2, 3-Dimethylpentane
2, 4-Dimethylpentane
Di methyl phthal ate
2, 2 -Dimethyl propane
Dimethyl Sulfate
Dimethyl Sulfoxide
Dioctyl Terephthalate
1, 4-Dioxane
Dipentyl Ether
Diphenyl Ether
Di phenylmethane
Di propylami ne
Dipropyl Ether
Dodecane
and Viscosity Data
Density Temp.
(g/cm3) C.
0.9950
1.0426
0.9324
1.3003
1.2828
1.2417
1.1835
1.2600
1.22
1.2546
1.2736
1.3348
1.558
1.1859
1.0912
1.0899
0.927
0.8254
0.7056
0.9351
0.9804
0.7193
0.986
1.0637
1.0550
1.0843
1.120
1.1774
0.8367
3.3078
0.7777
0.966
0.969
0.7153
0.7325
1.0819
0.8621
1.171
0.8665
0.9366
1.6616
0.9559
0.6445
0.6570
0.8286
0.8300
0.8179
0.9445
1.1513
0.6951
0.6727
1.1905
0. 5910
1.3322
1.0958
0.984
1.0280
0.7790
1.0661
1.0060
0.7375
0.7518
0.7487
20
25
25
25
25
60
15
15
20
20
25
15
20
20
20
30
20
20
20
29
15
15
20
25
20
15
20
20
20
25
20
20
25
20
25
25
25
20
15
25
15
20
25
25
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
21
20
20
25
20
25
25
30
20
20
15
20
for Selected Chemicals.
Absolute Temp.
Ref. Viscosity (cp) C.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
B
A
A
C
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
C
C
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
5.63
16.47
7.96
1.324
1.04
0.720
0.505
0.887
0.36
0.404
0.444
0.449
0.769
380.
13. 5
0.388
2.18
0.868
0.247
80.
3.14
2.15
2.311
9.5
0.446
2.392
1.40
108.
72.
0.40
0.379
3.281
0.455
53.
0.340
0.838
0.207
1.285
0.351
0.361
0.802
3. 54
0.406
0.361
11.
0.303
1.996
63
1.439
0.922
1.158
0. 534
0.448
1. 508
20
25
25
25
25
70
25
15
20
20
25
15
15
30
20
10
20
15
15
20
25
20
15
20
20
30
11
20
25
25
25
25
25
20
15
30
15
25
25
25
20
20
20
20
20
5
25
25
15
30
30
20
15
20
Ref.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
B
A
A
C
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
C
C
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
A-15
-------
Table A-3. Density and Viscosity Data
Temp
Density
Chemical (g/cm3) C.
1-Dodecanol
1,2-Epoxy butane
1, 2-Ethanedi ami ne
1.2-Ethanediol
1, 2-Ethanedi ol Diacetate
Ethanol
Ethoxybenzene
2-Ethoxyethanol
2-(2-ethoxyethoxy)ethanol
2-(2-ethoxyethoxy)ethyl
Acetate
2-Ethoxyethyl Acetate
Ethyl Acetate
Ethyl Acetoacetate
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl Benzoate
2-Ethyl-l-butanol
Ethyl Butyrate
Ethyl ci nnamate
Ethyl Cyanoacetate
Ethyl cyclohexane
Ethylene Carbonate
2,2'-(Ethylenedi oxy)di ethanol
Ethyl eni mi ne
Ethyl Formate
2-Ethyl-l-hexanol
2-Ethylhexyl Acetate
Ethyl Lactate
Ethyl 3-Methylbutanoate
Ethyl Propanoate
Ethyl Salicylate
Fl uorobenzene
o-Fl uorotol uene
m-Fl uorotol uene
p-Fl uorotol uene
Formami de
Formi c Aci d
2-Furaldehyde
Furan (Furfuran)
Furfuryl Alcohol
Glycerol
Glyceryl Triacetate
Heptane
1-Heptanol
2-Heptanol
1-Heptene
Hexadecane
1-Hexadecanol
Hexafl uorobenzene
Hexamethyl phosphori c Tri amide
Hexane
Hexaneni tri le
Hexanoi c Aci d
1-Hexanol
2-Hexanol
3-Hexanol
1-Hexene
4-Hydroxy-4-methyl -2-pentanone
Hydrazi ne
lodobenzene
lodoethane
lodomethane
1-lodopropane
0.8343
0.8297
0.8977
1.1171
1.1043
0.7851
0.9651
0.9295
0.9841
1.0096
0.9730
0.8946
1.025
0.9234
0.8670
1.0465
0.8330
0.8794
1.0494
1.0648
0.7879
1.3208
1.1235
0.832
0.9160
0.8332
0.8718
1.0299
0.8657
0.8957
1.1362
1.0240
1.0014
0.9974
0.9975
1.1334
1.2141
1.1616
0.9378
1.1285
1.2582
1.160
0.6795
0.8223
0.8139
0.6970
0.7733
1.4355
1.6182
1.027
0.6594
0.8052
0.9230
0.8162
0.8144
0.8185
0.6732
0.9341
1.9307
1.9358
2.2790
1.7489
20
20
20
15
20
25
20
20
25
20
25
25
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
40
20
25
20
20
20
25
20
15
20
20
17
20
20
20
25
20
20
20
25
20
25
20
25
20
20
60
20
20
20
20
25
25
20
20
20
25
20
20
20
20
for Selected Chemicals.
Absolute Temp
vi scosi ty
Ref. (cp) C.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
0.41
1.54
26.09
3.13
1.078
1.364
2.05
3.71
2.8
1.025
0.426
1.508
0.678
2.407
5.892
0.672
8.7
2.50
0.843
49.0
0.418
0.419
9.8
1.5
2.44
0.564
1.772
0.620
0.680
0.608
0.622
3.764
1.966
1.49
0.380
4.62
945.
17.4
0.397
5.06
0.35
3.34
3.47
0.313
1.041
2.814
4.592
0.26
2.9
0.97
1.774
0.617
0.518
0.837
20
25
15
20
25
15
20
25
20
25
25
20
20
15
25
20
20
25
20
20
25
15
20
20
25
15
45
15
20
20
20
20
25
25
20
25
25
20
25
25
20
20
20
20
25
25
25
20
20
20
17
15
15
15
Ref.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
A-16
-------
Table A-3. Density
chemi cal
2-lodopropane
Isobutylami ne
Isobutyroni tri le
Isopropyl Acetate
Isopropylami ne
Isopropylbenzene
Isoqui noli ne
Lacti c Aci d
Methacrylic Acid
Methacryloni tri le
Methanol
Methoxybenzene
2-Methoxyethanol
2-(2-Methoxyethoxy)ethanol
2-Methoxyethyl Acetate
N-Methylacetamide
Methyl Acetate
Methyl Acetoacetate
Methyl Acrylate
Methyl Benzoate
2-Methyl butane
4-Methylbutanenitrile
2-Methyl butanoi c Aetate
3-Methyl butanoi c Acid
2-Methyl-l-butanol
3-Mathyl -1-butanol
2-Methyl-2-butanol
3-Methyl-2-butanol
3-Methyl butyl Acetate
Methyl Butyrate
Methyl Cyanoacetate
Methyl cylcohexane
ci s-2-Methylcyclohexanol
trans- 2 -Methyl cyclohexanol
ci s-3-Methylcylohexanol
trans-3-Methylcylohexanol
ci s-4-Methylcyclohexanol
t ran s-4-Me thy 1 cyclohexanol
Methylcyclopentane
N-Methyl formami de
Methyl Formate
2-Methyl hexane
3-Methyl hexane
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl Oleate
2-Methyl pentane
3-Methyl pentane
2-Methyl-l-pentanol
3-Methyl -1- pen tanol
4- Methyl -1-pentanol
2-Methyl-2-pentanol
3-Methyl-2-pentanol
4-Methyl-2-pentanol
2-Methyl-3-pentanol
3-Methyl-3-pentanol
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2-Methyl propanami ne
2-Methyl propanoi c Acid
2-Methyl-l-propanol
2-Methyl-2-propanol
N-Methyl propi onami de
Methyl Propi onate
1-Methyl propyl Acetate
and Viscosity Data
Temp
Density
(g/cm3) C.
1.7025
0.7346
0.7656
0.8718
0.6875
0.8618
1.0986
1.2060
1.0153
0.8001
0.7866
0.9893
0.9646
1.0167
1.0049
0.9460
0.9273
1.0747
0.9535
1.0933
0.6197
0.8035
0.8719
0.9308
0.8190
0.8103
0.8090
0.8179
0.8664
0.8984
1.1225
0.7694
0.9254
0.9247
0.9168
0.9214
0.9122
0.9080
0.7486
0.9988
0.9742
0.6786
0.6871
0.9433
0.8702
0.6532
0.6643
0.8242
0.8237
0.8130
0.8136
0.8291
0.8076
0.8239
0.8291
0.8006
0.7346
0.9682
0.7978
0.7812
0.9305
0.9221
0.8720
20
20
25
20
20
20
25
25
20
20
25
25
20
25
20
35
25
20
20
15
20
20
20
15
20
20
20
20
25
25
25
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
20
25
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
25
25
15
20
for Selected Chemicals.
Absolute Temp
vi scosi ty
Ref. (cp) C.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
0.732
0.553
0.456
0.569
0.36
0.791
40.33
0.392
0.544
0.789
1.72
3.48
3.23
0.362
1.704
1.398
2.298
0.225
0.980
0.872
2.731
5.50
4.81
5.48
3.51
0.790
0.543
2.793
0.734
18.08
37.13
19.7
25.1
0.247
0.385
0.507
1.65
0.328
0.378
0.372
0.632
4.88
0.310
0.307
4.074
0.542
1.213
3.91
3.316
5.215
0.477
15
25
30
20
25
20
25
20
25
30
20
25
35
25
20
20
15
20
20
20
15
20
15
15
25
25
25
20
20
25
25
25
25
25
25
20
25
25
20
20
20
30
20
25
25
25
25
25
30
25
15
Ref.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
A-17
-------
Table A-3. Density
chemi cal
2-Methyl propyl Acetate
2-Methyl propyl Formate
2-Methyl pyri di ne
3-Methyl pyri di ne
4-Methyl pyri di ne
l-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinone
Methyl Sal icy! ate
Morpholi ne
Napthal ene
o-Ni troani sole
Ni trobenzene
Ni troethane
Ni tromethane
1-Ni t ro- 2- me thoxy benzene
1-Ni tropropane
2-Ni tropropane
o-Ni trotol uene
m-Ni trotol uene
p-Ni trotol uene
Nonane
1-Nonanol
1-Nonene
1-Octadecanol
Octane
Octaneni tri 1 e
Octanoi c Aci d
1-Octanol
2-Octanol
3-Octanol
4-Octanol
1-Octene
oi 1 , castor
oi 1 , Cottonseed
Oi 1 , Li nseed
Oil, Light Machine
Oi 1 , Heavy Machi ne
oi 1 , ol i ve
Oi 1 , Soya Bean
ol ei c Aci d
2,2' -Oxybi s(chl o roe thane)
2 , 2-Oxydiethanol
Pentachloroe thane
Pentadecane
ci s-1, 3-Pentadi ene
trans-1, 3-Pentadiene
2 , 3-Pentadi ene
Pentane
2,4-Pentanedione
Pentaneni tri le
1-Pentanoi c Aci d
1-Pentanol
2-Pentanol
3-Pentanol
2-Pentanone
3-Pentanone
1-Pentene
ci s-2-Pentene
trans-2-Pentene
Pentyl Acetate
Phenol
Phenylacetonitrile
D-Pi nene
L-Pi nene
and Viscosity Data
Temp
Density
(g/cm3) C.
0.8745
0.8854
0.9444
0.9566
0.9548
1.0279
1.1831
1.0050
0.9752
1.2408
1.2033
1.0382
1.1312
1.2527
0.9955
0.9821
1.1629
1.1571
1.1038
0.7176
0.8280
0.7922
0.8123
0.7025
0.8059
0.9106
0.8258
0.8207
0.8216
0.8192
0.7149
0.96
0.922
0.932
0.87
0.89
0.915
0.922
0.8906
1.2192
1.1167
1.6881
0.7685
0.6859
0.6710
0.6900
0.6214
0.9721
0.8035
0.9392
0.8112
0.8053
0.8160
0.8095
0.8144
0.6405
0.6556
0.6482
0.8753
1.0533
0.0125
0.8600
0.8590
20
20
20
20
20
25
20
15
85
25
20
25
25
20
25
25
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
30
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
15
20
25
25
25
25
25
15
20
25
25
25
20
20
20
20
20
20
46
25
20
20
for Selected Chemicals.
Absolute Temp
vi scosi ty
Ref. (cp) C.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
E
E
E
F
F
E
E
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
0.697
0.680
0.805
1.666
38.27
0.780
1.634
0.661
0.595
0.798
0.750
2.37
2.33
1.20
0.7160
0.620
0.546
1.356
5.828
6.125
0.470
986.
70.4
33.1
113.8
660.6
84.0
69.3
38.80
2.41
35.7
2.751
2.81
0.225
0.779
2.359
3.347
2.780
3.306
0.478
0.24
0.924
4.076
1.93
1.61
1.41
20
20
20
25
15
99
20
25
30
25
25
20
20
60
20
20
20
30
20
30
20
20
20
30
16
16
20
20
20
20
20
15
22
25
15
15
25
30
30
20
0
20
46
25
25
25
Ref.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
A-18
-------
Table A-3. Density and
chemi cal
Pi peri di ne
1-Propanal
1, 2-Propanedi ol
1, 3-Propanedi ol
Propaneni tri 1 e
1-Propanol
2-Propanol
2-Propen-l-ol [Allyl Alcohol]
Propi oni c Aci d
Propionic Anhydride
Propi oni tri 1 e
Propyl Acetate
Propylami ne
Propyl Benzoate
Propylene Oxide
Propyl Formate
2-Propyn-l-ol
1-Propynyl Acetate
Pyri di ne
Pyrrol e
2-Pyrrol i di none
Qui noli ne
Sal i cyal dehyde
Succi noni tri le
Sul fol ane
Styrene
1,1,2,2-Tetrabromoethane
1,1.2, 2Tetrachlorodi fl uo roe thane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene (PERC)
Tetrachloromethane [Carbon
Tet.]
Tetradecane
1-Tetradecanol
Tetrahydrofuran
Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol
1,2,3,4-Tetrahydronapthalene
Tetrahydropyran
Tetrahydrothiophene
1,1,2, 2-Tetramethyl urea
Tetrani tromethane
2-Thi abutane
Thiacyclobutane
Thiacyclohexane
Thiacyclopentane
2-Thi apentane
3-Thi apentane
2-Thi apropane
Thi ophene
Tol uene
o-Tol ui di ne
m-Tol ui di ne
p-Tol ui di ne
Tri bromomethane (Bromoform)
Tri-n-butyl Borate
Tri-n-butyl Phosphate
Trichloroacetonitrile
1, 1, 1-Tri chl o roe thane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Tri chloroethene (TCE)
Tri chl oromethane [chloroform]
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
Tricresyl Phosphate
Tri decane
vi scosi ty Data
Temp
Density
(g/cm3) C.
0,
0,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
1,
1,
0,
1,
0,
2,
1,
1,
1,
1,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
2,
0,
0,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
0,
.8613
.7970
.0364
.0538
.7911
.7995
.7813
.8551
.9934
.0110
.7818
.8883
.7173
.0232
.8287
.9006
.9478
.9982
.9832
.9699
.107
.0977
.1574
.9867
.2614
.9060
.9640
.6447
.6026
.6311
.5842
.7628
.8151
.8889
.5024
.9702
.8772
.9938
.9654
.6372
.8422
.0200
.9861
.9987
.8424
.8363
.8483
.0649
.8623
.0028
.9930
.9538
.9035
.8580
.9760
.4403
.3492
.4424
.4679
.4985
.3880
.173
.7563
20
20
20
20
20
25
25
15
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
15
20
60
30
20
20
25
15
15
20
20
50
20
20
20
25
25
25
21
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
15
15
60
15
20
25
25
20
20
20
15
20
20
20
for Selected Chemicals.
Absolute Temp
vi scosi ty
Ref. (cp) C.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
1.362
0.317
56.0
46.6
0.624
2.004
1.765
1.486
1.175
1.144
0.454
0.585
0.353
0.327
0.574
1.68
0.952
1.352
13.3
4.354
2.90
2.591
10.286
0.751
9.79
1.21
1.844
1.932
0.969
2.18
0.55
6.24
2.202
0.764
0.971
0.373
0.638
1.042
0.440
0.289
0.654
0.552
5.195
4.418
1.557
2.152
1.776
3.39
0.903
0.119
0.566
0.596
80.0
18.834
25
20
20
20
15
25
30
15
15
20
15
20
25
20
20
20
20
20
25
15
20
60
30
20
20
25
15
15
20
20
20
20
20
25
25
20
20
20
20
20
20
25
15
15
60
15
20
25
15
20
20
15
20
20
Ref.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
A-19
-------
Table A-3. Density and Viscosity Data for Selected Chemicals.
Chemi cal
1-Tri decene
Tri ethanolami ne
Tri ethylami ne
Tri fl uoroaceti c Acid
1,2, 3 -Tri methyl benzene
1,2, 4 -Tri methyl benzene
1,3, 5 -Tri methyl benzene
2,2,3-Trimethylbutane
ci s-1, 3, 5-Trimethylcyclohexane
trans-1,3, 5 -Tri methyl cyclohexane
2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
2, 2, 4 -Tri methyl pen tane
Turpenti ne
Undecane
1-Undecanol
Vinyl Acetate
o-Xylene
m-Xyl ene
p-Xylene
Densi ty
(g/cm3)
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
.7653
.1196
.7281
.4890
.8944
.8758
.8652
.6901
.7705
.7789
.7160
.6919
.7402
.8324
.9312
.8802
.8642
.8611
Temp
C.
20
25
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Ref .
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Absol ute
vi scosi ty
(cp)
613.6
0.394
0.926
0.895
1.154
0.579
0.632
0.714
0.598
0.504
1.487
11.855
23.95
0.809
0.617
0.644
Temp
C.
25
15
20
15
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Ref.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
References:
A Lange's Handbook of Chemistry, 1987, McGraw-Hill, New York.
B weast, R. C., (ed.), 1972, Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 53rd Edition,
CRC Publishing Co., Cleveland, Ohio.
C Ashland Chemicals, 1985-1986, Product Catalog.
D Schwille, F., 1988, Dense Chlorinated Solvents in Porous and Fractured Media,
Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.
E U.S. Coast Guard, 1978, CHRIS Hazardous Chemical Data.
F Chevron, 1988, Product Salesfax Digest.
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
A-20
-------
Appendix B - Pump-and-Treat Applications
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
TABLE B-1. SUMMARY OF PUMPMAND-TREAT APPLICATIONS
Site Name
& State
GWV
Region
Aquifer
Properties
Major
Contaminants
NAPL
Remediation
Design
Treatment
Monitoring
Capabilities
Effectiveness/
Limitations
Des Moines, Glaciated Highly permeable, un-
IA Central confined sand and
Region gravel aquifer.
[Well Laterally extensive.
monitored] SS, SH, and LS
bed rock aquifers
below.
TCE and byproducts:
trans-1,2-DCE, VC.
Max. cone. TCE=
8,967 ppb
No 7 recovery wells,
total pumpage = 1300
gpm.
Air stripper
60 wells &
piez., monthly
WQ from 36
wells for 34
VOCs plus
WLs.
• Effective zone of cap-
ture developed within 6
months.
• Lack of fine grained
seds. in aquifer favors
extraction.
• Significant decline in
concentrations.
• Vadose zone contami-
ination may cause
lengthy remediation
Site A,
FL
[Small
plume]
Southeast
Coastal
Plain
Biscayne aquifer, sole
source. Highly
permeable sand and
limestone, flat water
table.
Mostly limited to upper
portion of aquifer.
Benzene, CB, 1-4-
dichlorobenzene
trans-1,2-DCE, VC
No 1 recovery well, total Air stripper, 14 wells
pumpage = 30-50 discharge to sampled 6
gpm, screened 15 to city sewer times over 6
25 ft. bis. system months
• Chemical concentra-
tions in most monitor
wells have been re-
duced significantly.
• Overoptimistically
designed 25 to 60 day
cleanup not obtained,
but appears to be
making good progress.
DuPont Mobile
Plant, AL
Atlantic and
Gulf Caostal
Plain
Unit A clay, unit B
sand, and unit C clay.
Unit B sand is now
unconfined due to
pumping.
PCAP, CBT
No Initially 2 wells at 62.5
gpm each. 2 wells
added later to improve
capture effectiveness.
4 wells in line.
Onsite industrial Approx. 50
bio-treatment, wells, but
discharged to limited chem-
Mobile River. ical data.
• 4 years of extraction
have reduced contam-
ination extent and levels
in upper aquifer.
• Data not available to
assess deeper aquifer.
Fairchild Alluvial 300-400 ft. of
Semiconductor Basin Quaternary alluvium.
Corp., CA Multiaquifer system.
Aquifers A-D are sand
[Extensive and gravel, separated
remediation] by silt and silty clay.
Xylene, Acetone, TCE,
I PA, Freon-113, Max
cone, in aquifer A:
Acetone = 99,000,000
ppb, Xylene =
76,000,000 ppb.
Chemicals have
migrated laterally and
vertically.
Conoen. Included soil removal, Air stripping or
exceed slurry wall hauled offsite.
solu- construction, aquifer Discharge to
bility flushing, in-situ soil Canoas Creek
aeration, and pump via San Jose
and treat. 36 recovery storm sewer
wells phased in. Total system. GAC
pumpage started at used if needed.
1,260 gpm from 1 well,
peaked at 9,200 gpm,
and has since been
reduced to 2,100 gpm.
40 recovery
wells sampled
biweekly. 84
monitor wells
sampled
sporadically.
• In operation for 7 yrs.
• Hydraulic successful.
• Chemical concentra-
tions reduced 3 orders of
magnitude in upper 3
aquifers.
• 90,000 pounds of
solvents removed.
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
B-1
-------
Site Name GW Aquifer Major
& State Region Properties Contaminants
Ponders Corner, Alluvial Dominantly glacial Dry cleaning washes:
WA Basin sand and gravel. no PCE, TCE, 1 ,2-T-
Some perched zones. DCE
Strong downward
vertical gradient, fairly
heterogeneous.
Groundwater flows
affected by septic
tank discharge and
production well
pumping.
Remediation
NAPL Design
No Since 1984, 2 pro-
duction wells pumped
a total of 2,000 gpm.
1988, vapor extrac-
tion in vadose zone
initiated.
Monitoring
Treatment Capabilities
Air stripping. 42 monitor
wells. Fairly
limited samp-
ling program.
Most chemical
data from
pumping wells.
Effectiveness/
Limitations
• Periodic shutdown of
some production wells
has allowed main
plume to migrate
beyond zone of
capture.
• Chemicals adsorb to
low permeability till,
slow releases.
• Overall, definite reduc-
tion of contaminants at
well head.
IBM-Dayton, NJ Nonglaci-
ated Central
[Long remediation Region
history]
Sand with clay layers
over relatively
impermeable
Brunswick shale
bedrock.
TCA, PCE. Max cone. Yes
TCA = 9590 ppb. DNAPL
13 shallow wells, 1
deep well.
Air stripping
and reapplica-
tion via spray
irrigation and
injection wells.
Nearly 100
monitoring
wells. Long
history.
• 1978 through 1984
remediation deemed
successful.
• Continued monitoring
showed chemical
concentration
increased after
extraction shutdown.
• Additional pump and
treat planned for plume
containment.
Gen. Rad. Corp.,
MA
Northeast
and
Superior
Uplands
Nichols Eng. and Nonglaci-
Research Corp., ated Central
NJ Region
Stratified, permeable
glacial sand and
gravel over relatively
impermeable till and
bedrock.
Weathered/fractured
shale; near vertical
fractures.
TCE and by products:
1,1-DCA, 1-1 DCE,
MC, trans-1,2-DCE,
1,1,1-TCA, VC,
tetrachloroethylene
Carbontet, chloroform,
PCE
No 2 wells, each 15 gpm Airstripping 16monitor
or greater. Shutdown wells, sampled
25% of year (winter). quarterly.
DNAPL Phased approach. Direct 4 wells sam-
sus- Initially 1 well at 60- discharge to pled monthly.
pected 65 gpm. 1/89,2 HMVA 8 other wells
but additional wells on sampled
not line. Total extraction sporadically.
found still only 70 gpm
(discharge permit
restriction).
• Under review.
• Consultants suggest
40% reduction in plume
contaminants.
• Carbontet. cone.
reduced 80 to 90% in
some wells.
• Rate of chemical
removal has dropped
significantly.
• Significant quantities of
carbontet. suspected in
vadose zone.
• May add intermittent
pumping, soil vapor
extraction, or artificial
recharge to improve
recovery in vadose
zone.
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
B-2
-------
Site Name GW Aquifer
& State Region Properties
Verona Well Glaciated Glacial outwash
Field, Ml Central (sand, gravel and
Region some clay locally)
overlying a fractured,
permeable sandstone
aquifer.
IBM General Alluvial Alluvial sand and
Products Div., Basin gravel, with silt and
CA clay layers. Multiple
aquifer system
[Complex site] (aquifers A-E).
Heterogeneous.
Emerson Electric Southeast Unconfined sand.
Co., FL Coastal Relatively
Plains homogeneous.
[Only site
designated as
"clean"]
General Mills, Glaciated Glacial drift aquifer
Inc., MN Central underlain by till and
Region several bedrock (SH,
Major
Contaminants
1,1-DCA, 1,2-DCA
1,1,1-TCA, 1,2-DCE,
1,1-DCE, TCE, PCE.
Total VOCs > 100,000
ppb.
Freon, TCA, DCE,
TCE. Complex
contaminant
distribution.
Acetone, MEK, MIBK,
Toluene, DCE, DCA,
TCE, TCA, Benzene,
Chromium
TEC, PCE, TCA, BTX
and organic degrada-
tion byproducts.
NAPL
Yes,
LNAPL
up to
6 in.
thick
mostly
Tour-
ene
based
Yes,
Prod.
not
ex-
plained
No
No
effort
to
Remediation
Design
3-phase approach.
To protect wellfield, 5
existing production
wells pumped "at
minimum." Onsite, 9
water-table recovery
wells, total pumpage
= 400 gpm. 23 PVC
wells for vapor
extraction.
Over 23,000 cubic
yds. of soil and 65
buried storage tanks
removed. 3 separate
extraction systems
(source area,
boundary system,
offsite system). 30
total extraction wells.
Complex pumping
schedule.
5 surficial wells, total
pumpage = 30 gpm.
5 recovery wells in
water-table aquifer,
total pumpage = 370
Treatment
Carbon pre-
treatment (if
nee) and air
stripping
(vapor-phase
carbon ad-
sorption, if
needed).
Discharge to
Battle Cr. Rv.
Not specified.
Directly to
municipal
sanitary sewer
network.
3 wells: air
stripping then
discharge to
Monitoring
Capabilities
Water quality
from 5
extraction
wells.
Over 350
monitoring
wells. Most
wells sampled
monthly or
quarterly for
selected
parameters.
Over 25,000
groundwater
samples coll.
Composite and
individual water
quality samples
from recovery
wells. Cone.
data from moni-
toring wells not
reported.
Not clear.
Effectiveness/
Limitations
• Effectively blocked
migration.
• Residual LNAPL slows
cleanup.
• Vapor extraction has
accelerated cleanup.
• Reduced contami-
nation concentrations
onsite in shallow
aquifer but little change
in other areas.
• Over 7,600 pounds of
solvent removed by
extraction system from
1983-1987.
• Projected cleanup of 7
months not obtained.
• Most contaminants in
recovery wells reduced
to BDL after 20-22
months.
• Site removed from
• State Action Site listing
on 1/89.
• Inadequate monitoring.
• Significant concentra-
tion declines in 1988
but drought year.
SS, LS) aquifer.
detect gpm. 1 recovery well
in deep aquifer at 20-
30 gpm.
storm sewer.
3 wells:
discharge
directly to
storm sewer.
• Hydraulic gradients
(particularly vertical)
not satisfactorily con-
trolled; part of plume is
being missed.
• It is unlikely cleanup
goals will be achieved:
shallow < 270 ppb TCE,
deep < 27 ppb TCE.
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
B-3
-------
Site Name GW
& State Region
Harris Corp., FL Southeast
Coastal
[Too many Plain
consultants]
Aquifer
Properties
Two sand aquifers
separated by a leaky
clay aquitard.
Heterogeneous.
Major
Contaminants
T-1.2-DCE, TCE, VC,
MC.CB. Other
volatile and nonvolatile
organics are present.
Remediation
NAPL Design
No 4 offsite produciton
wells pumped. 10
points later replaced
by 2 rec. wells. Well
point "problems." 4
deep barrier wells: 2
shallow, 3 shallow, 3
deep - 25 gpm each.
3 deep - 50 gpm, tot.
pumpage = 275 gpm.
Treatment
Air stripper
then discharge
to deep well
injection.
Monitoring Effectiveness/
Capabilities Limitations
Not clear • Well head protection
objective achieved
better than plume
containment.
• Ineffective capturing
shallow plume migra-
tion downgradient.
Amphenol Corp.,
NY
[Relatively low
initial VOC cone.]
Glaciated
Central
Region
200 ft. alluvial
sequence. Sand and
gravel with some silt
and clay. Relatively
permeable, hetero-
geneous.
VOCs, mostly TCE
and chloroform. Max.
VOC concentration in
well = 329 ppb.
No
2 recovery wells:
shallow zone - 57
gpm, deep zone -
150 gpm.
Air stripping,
discharge to
Susquehanna
River.
Sampled 12-17
wells quarterly.
• Groundwater divide
successfully developed
between plume and
production wells.
• VOC concentrations
have been reduced
during 1 1\2 years
operation and fluctuate
much less.
• Seasonal recharge and
river fluctuations
strongly influence flow
patterns and may temp-
orarily modify desired
capture zones.
• Remediations status is
on schedule, anticipate
5-10 years remediation.
A/M Area.SRP,
SC
Atlantic and
Gulf Coastal
Plain
Sand, silt, clay.
Heterogeneous.
Downward vertical
flow at site.
TCE, PCE, TCA
No 11 recovery wells, Air stripping, "165moni-
total pumpage = 395 discharge to A- toring wells
gpm, limited by air 104 outfall. sampled in
stripper discharge 1988."
pump.
• Downward migration
reduced.
• Only very slight reduc-
tion in size and con-
centration of TCE
plume over 3 years
remediation.
• Expected to take longer
than the projected 30
years to remove 99% of
initial contaminants.
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
B-4
-------
Site Name GW
& State Region
Utah Power and Columbia
Light Pole Treat- Lave
ment Yard, ID Plateau
Black and Glaciated
Decker, NY Central
Region
Olin Chemicals Non-
DOE Rem glaciated
Facility, KY Central
Region
Aquifer Major
Properties Contaminants
Individual lava flows Creosote - mostly
separated by PAHs. Low solubility,
sediments. Vertical low mobility.
fractures in lava.
Very heterogeneous.
Thin till layer overlaying TCE, TCA, and
fractured sandstone byproducts DCE and
and shale bedrock. VC.
Unconsolidated, Dichloroethyl ether
heterogeneous but (DCEE)
highly permeable, Dichloroisopropyl
glacio-fluvial ether (DCIPE)
sediments overlying Highly mobile.
low permeability
limestone bedrock.
Remediation
NAPL Design
Yes Soil excavated. Two
DNAPL stage approach. 6-
month pilot program.
3 wells in upper
aquifier, 2 wells in
lower aquifer, total
pumpage = 25 gpm.
Many problems with
high concentrations
(slugs) of NAPL
extraction:
• reduced flow rate
• incompatible with
PVC
• clogging.
Second 6-mo. pilot
program went well
into full scale. 7 wells
in upper aquifer, total
pumpage = 46 gpm,
7 wells in lower
aquifer, total
pumpage = 145 gpm.
No Initially tried one
bedrock recovery
well at 3.4 gpm.
Inadequate rate.
Used explosives to
create fracture zone
perpendicular to flow.
Pumping one
recovery well in new
fracture zone at 18.5
gpm.
No 3 recovery wells
between plume and
Ohio River, total
pumpage = 3000-
5000 gpm.
Treatment
"Treated" and
released to
sewer system
or Snake
River.
Not clear.
Used as
process water,
biologically
treated at
onsite
activated-
sludge
wastewater
treatment plant
and discharged
through state
PDES.
Monitoring Effectiveness/
Capabilities Limitations
Not clear. • Flow pattern has
successfully been
altered, both areal and
vertical.
• NAPL is being
recovered.
• Difficult to determine
overall success due to
chemical fluctuations.
15 monitor • No significant changes
wells sampled in VOCs observed.
forVOCs. 2
monitor wells in
new fracture
zone.
Semiannual • No operational
sampling of problems noted except
several monitor 80-90% of extracted
wells. water is induced river
recharge.
• In general,
concentrations have
declined in monitoring
wells in 4 years.
[DCIPE]
1984/1270 ppb
1988/300 ppb
• 5 new recovery wells
planned for 1989.
Word searchable Version - Not a true copy
B-5
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300
Please make all necessary changes on the abpve label,
detach or copy, and then return to the address in the upper
left-hand corner.
If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HERE D;
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the
upper left-hand corner.
EPA/600/8-90/003
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
------- |