REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT REPORTS
SUMMARY OF SELECTED DOCUMENTS
This fact sheet identifies documents prepared by federal and state agencies to assist project
managers in selecting and designing remediation technologies. Remediation technologies are
typically developed through successive testing from the laboratory to the field-scale, as illustrated
in the timeline below. When technologies have been implemented at full-scale, technology
assessment reports are prepared to document the use of the technologies at multiple sites. Design
manuals are then prepared to provide technical guidance based on technology assessments and
lessons learned.
TIMELINE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF REMEDIATIONTECHNOLOGIES
Early or small-scale
field demonstration
Common use in
full-scale cleanups;
technology optimization
Design manuals
Bench- or pilot-scale
investigation; emerging
technologies
Large-scale field
demonstrations; early
full-scale cleanups
Technology assessments
based on multi-site use
Member agencies of the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) are conducting an
ongoing effort to document large-scale demonstration projects and full-scale cleanups in order to
capture cost and performance data and other lessons learned. The FRTR works to promote cooperation
among federal agencies in order to advance the use of remediation technologies for cleaning up hazardous
waste sites. Primary members of the FRTR include the U.S. Departments of Defense, Energy, and
Interior; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Currently, the Web site (www.frtr.gov) has approximately 375 technology case studies
available in a searchable format. As experience has been gained from applications of new technologies,
federal agencies and states (through the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council [ITRC]*) have
been preparing broad technology assessments and design manuals based on these site-specific case
studies. This fact sheet highlights some of these documents that may be among the most useful to
project managers.
WHAT INFORMATION DOES THE WEB SITE CONTAIN?
The Remediation Technology Assessment Reports Web site (http://costperformance.org/remediation)
contains documents that are based on practical field experience with either specific technologies
(such as permeable reactive barriers) or, in a few instances, specific contaminants (such as arsenic).
As of August 2005, the Web site included 68 remediation technology assessment reports. New
documents are identified and added to the collection every year. The table on the next page lists the
technologies and contaminants addressed by the documents in the compilation; documents addressing
the technologies listed in bold are highlighted in this fact sheet.
The ITRC is a state-led coalition of regulators, industry experts, citizen stakeholders, academicians, and federal partners
that work together to achieve regulatory acceptance of environmental technologies. Additional information about the ITRC
is available at www.itrcweb.org.
http://costperformance.org/remediation
-------
TECHNOLOGIES AND CONTAMINANTS COVERED IN REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT REPORT COMPILATION
Air Sparging
Arsenic
Bioremediation
Containment- Barrier Walls
Containment - Caps
Dense Nonaqueous-Phase
Liquids
Flushing
In Situ Chemical Oxidation
In Situ Thermal Treatment
Incineration (on-site)
In-Well Air Stripping
Monitored Natural Attenuation
Multi-Phase Extraction
Permeable Reactive Barriers
Phytoremediation
Soil Vapor Extraction
Soil Washing
Solidification/Stabilization
Thermal Desorption
Underground StorageTank
Sites/Fuel-Contaminated
Sites
For the technologies listed in bold above, the following documents are considered to be among the most useful for
project managers.
Am SPARGING
Cost and Performance Report: Multi-Site In Situ Air Sparging (Navy, April 2005)
The objective of the project discussed in this report was to implement the Air Sparging
Design Paradigm at a number of existing air sparging sites in order to determine whether the
Paradigm was effective for evaluating air distribution and whether other design guidelines
were valid. The Paradigm provides details on air sparging principles; site characterization;
pilot testing; system design, installation, and operation; and system monitoring. Another
goal of the project was to modify the Paradigm as necessary based on results obtained
from 10 field sites. Using the Paradigm to evaluate and design air sparging systems should
result in applications that are more cost-effective and have better performance.
In addition to the above-mentioned report, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is
working on an update to its Engineer Manual on Air Sparging that will be posted on the
website when it is complete.
BIOREMEDIATION
c:
Principles and Practices of Enhanced Anaerobic Bioremediation of Chlorinated
Solvents (Environmental SecurityTechnology Certification Program [ESTCP] and U.S.
Air Force, Navy, and Army, August 2004)
This report contains information that can help project managers (1) make more informed
decisions about enhanced bioremediation as a remedial alternative, (2) select specific
enhanced bioremediation approaches that are suitable for achieving cleanup goals, and (3)
track bioremediation cost and performance. Although this process has been shown to
enhance the destruction of chlorinated solvents in situ at certain sites, there are conditions
that may limit or even preclude its use. The report can help project managers identify
conditions under which the technology may not be successfully applied.
In addition to the above-mentioned report, the ITRC is working on a document addressing in
situ bioremediation of dense nonaqueous-phase liquids (DNAPL) that will be posted on the
website when it is complete.
IN SITU CHEMICAL OXIDATION
Technical and Regulatory Guidance for In Situ Chemical Oxidation of Contaminated
Soil and Groundwater-Second Edition (ITRC, January 2005)
This document outlines the technical and regulatory requirements associated with in situ chemical
oxidation. The primary oxidants addressed are hydrogen peroxide, potassium and sodium
permanganate, sodium persulfate, and ozone. The document should prove useful to regulators,
stakeholders, consultants, and technology implementers. It is divided into sections that provide
a technology overview and discuss its applicability, remedial investigations, safety concerns,
regulatory concerns, injection design, monitoring, stakeholder concerns, and case studies.
http://costperformance.org/remediation
-------
IN SITU THERMAL TREATMENT
In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents: Fundamentals and Field
Applications (EPA, March 2004)
In situ thermal treatment technologies have proven to be effective in remediating source
zones contaminated with chlorinated solvents and are increasingly being used for that
purpose. This report provides an overview of the principles and science behind the technology;
its applicability and general engineering considerations; and applications of the technology
through site-specific examples and case studies. Specific technologies addressed include
steam-enhanced extraction, electrical resistive heating, and thermal conductive heating.
In addition to the above-mentioned report, USACE is working on a design document for in
situ thermal treatment that will be posted on the website when it is complete.
MULTI-PHASE EXTRACTION (MPE)
Multi-Phase Extraction (USACE, June 1999)
This engineering manual provides practical guidance for evaluating the feasibility and
applicability of MPE for remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater and describes
design and operational considerations for MPE systems. The document is primarily
intended to present USACE technical policy on the use of the technology and to help
prevent incorrect MPE application or MPE use in unfavorable settings.
PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIERS (PRB)
Capstone Report on the Application, Monitoring, and Performance of Permeable
Reactive Barriers for Ground-Water Remediation: Volumes I and II (EPA, August2003)
This report builds on work done in previous studies conducted by ESTCP. It evaluates the
long-term performance of zero-valent iron PRBs at several sites, including sites in Elizabeth
City, North Carolina, and Denver Federal Center, Colorado. The evaluation focuses on
changes in iron reactivity and reaction zone permeability overtime. The parameters used
for the evaluation are trends in geochemistry (for example, pH and oxidation-reduction
potential); microbiological activity within and around the barriers; and surface precipitation
forming over time in the barriers. The report discusses how these parameters may be
evaluated to predict barrier longevity and performance over time. The evaluation will be
useful to project managers who are constructing remedial designs and developing
performance-monitoring programs.
Permeable Reactive Barriers: Lessons Learned/New Directions (ITRC, February 2005)
This document updates previous guidance issued by the ITRC. The goal for this document
was to compile information on PRBs that has been generated over the last 10 years of
technology development and research as well as to provide information on non-iron-based
reactive media that can be used in PRBs. The document also provides an update on a
developing technology related to PRBs in which source zone contamination is treated with
iron-based reactive media.
Permeable Reactive Barrier Technologies for Contaminant Remediation (EPA,
September 1998)
This issue paper contains information on PRB-treatable contaminants; treatment reaction
mechanisms; feasibility studies for PRB implementation; site characterization; and PRB
design, emplacement, and monitoring for both compliance and performance as well as
summaries of several field applications. It also includes a summary of significant findings
of PRB research through 1997 and scoping calculations used to estimate the amount of
reactive media required.
http://costperformance.org/remediation
-------
SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION (SVE)
Engineering and Design - Soil Vapor Extraction and Bioventing (USAGE, June 2002)
This engineering manual provides practical guidance for design and operation of SVE and
bioventing (BV) systems. It addresses all aspects of the engineering of SVE and BV
systems, including site characterization, technology selection, bench- and pilot-scale testing,
design, installation, operation, and closure.
MONITORED NATURAL ATTENUATION (MNA)
Technical Protocol for Implementing Intrinsic Remediation with Long-Term Monitoring
for Natural Attenuation of Fuel Contamination Dissolved in Groundwater (U.S. Air
Force, March 1999)
This document presents a technical protocol for data collection and analysis in support
of MNA with long-term monitoring for restoration of groundwater contaminated with
fuel hydrocarbons. It describes the processes associated with MNA, the site
characterization activities that may be performed to support evaluation of the MNA
option, MNA modeling using analytical or numerical solute fate and transport models,
and the post-modeling activities that should be completed to ensure successful support
and verification of MNA.
Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in Ground
Water (EPA, September 1998)
This document presents a technical protocol for data collection and analysis to evaluate
MNA through biological processes for remediating groundwater contaminated with
mixtures of fuels and chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons. It identifies parameters that
are useful for evaluating natural attenuation of chlorinated solvents (chlorinated aliphatic
hydrocarbons and/or fuel hydrocarbons) and provides recommendations for analyzing
and interpreting the data collected during the site characterization process. It also
provides suggestions for integrating MNA into a remedial approach that includes an
active remedy.
DENSE NONAQUEOUS-PHASE LIQUIDS
Strategies for Monitoring the Performance ofDNAPL Source Zone Remedies (ITRC,
August 2004)
The purpose of this report is to serve as a tool to educate regulators and stakeholders
about performance monitoring of various in situ technologies for treating DNAPLs. The
document discusses issues related to DNAPLs, including the challenges of accurately
characterizing DNAPL sites, health and safety issues, and regulatory concerns. The
document also describes methods for quantifying the performance of a treatment technology
and ways to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of a remedial action in attaining
remediation objectives. Case studies are presented that highlight the various performance
assessment approaches used in recent DNAPL source zone treatment projects as well as
the remedial goals and objectives, performance monitoring and verification activities, and
lessons learned.
http://costperformance.org/remediation
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK SITES/FUEL-CONTAMINATED SITES
How to Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies for Underground Storage Tank
Sites: A Guide for Corrective Action Plan Reviewers (EPA, May 2004)
The purpose of this manual is to provide guidance for reviewing corrective action plans that
propose alternative cleanup technologies for the remediation of leaking underground storage
tank sites. The manual does not advocate the use of one technology over another; rather,
it focuses on appropriate technology use with consideration of site-specific conditions and
the nature and extent of contamination. A chapter discussing MNA as a technology alternative
is included in the manual.
CONTAINMENT - BARRIER WALLS
Evaluation of Subsurface Engineered Barriers at Waste Sites (EPA, August 1998)
The objective of the study discussed in this report was to address the performance of
subsurface engineered barriers installed throughout the United States over the previous 20
years to remediate hazardous waste sites and facilities. The study focused on vertical
barriers; evaluation of caps was a secondary objective. The overall approach to the study
was to assemble existing performance monitoring results from a number of sites and examine
those results in light of remedial objectives and factors that may influence barrier performance.
The factors considered included barrier design, construction quality assurance and quality
control; types of monitoring programs; and operation and maintenance efforts. Although the
report was published in 1998, the information it contains is still relevant and useful for
construction of subsurface engineered barriers.
How do I submit new reports or provide feedback?
To propose adding new reports to the compilation or to provide feedback on existing reports,
please contact Martha Otto of EPA's Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
at (703) 603-8853 or otto.martha@epa.gov.
http://costperformance.org/remediation
-------
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5102G)
National Service Center for
Environmental Publications
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
EPA542-F-05-006
August 2005
www.epa.gov
www.frtr.gov
900Z
S}U9lUnOOQ
jo
sjjoday
)U3LUSS3SSV
A6O|OUl|331
d/qeipunoy
------- |