Ground-Water Remediation

Technologies Analysis Center

615 William Pitt Way • Pittsburgh, PA 15238 • (412) 826-5511 • (800) 373-1973

Homepage: http://www.GWRTAC.org • E-mail: gwrtac@chmr.org

Prepared For:

Information

Report

Prepared By:

SERIES

I

GWRTAC

TI-97-01

Analysis of Information Contained in the Completed

North American Innovative Remediation Technology

Demonstration Projects

June 1997

Ralinda A. Miller, P.G.

Ground-Water Remediation

Technologies Analysis Center
I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

i

FOREWORD

About GWRTAC

The Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center (GWRTAC) is a national

environmental technology transfer center that provides information on the use of innovative

technologies to clean up contaminated groundwater.

Established in 1995, GWRTAC is operated by the National Environmental Technology

Applications Center (NETAC) in association with the University of Pittsburgh’s Environmental

Engineering Program through a Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency’s (EPA) Technology Innovation Office (TIO). NETAC is an operating

unit of the Center for Hazardous Materials Research and focuses on accelerating the

development and commercial use of new environmental technologies.

GWRTAC wishes to acknowledge the support and encouragement received for the

completion of this report from the EPA TIO.

About “I” Series Reports

This report is one of the GWRTAC “I” Series of reports, which are prepared on a range of

pertinent ground-water topics, including analysis of trends in technology utilization,

applicable regulatory issues and perspectives, state policies, and sources of environmental

information on the Internet. These reports are generally not peer-reviewed.

Disclaimer

GWRTAC makes no warranties, express or implied, including without limitation, warranty

for completeness, accuracy, or usefulness of the information, warranties as to the

merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose. Moreover, the listing of any technology,

corporation, company, person, of facility in this report does not constitute endorsement,

approval, or recommendation by GWRTAC, NETAC, or the EPA.
I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

ABSTRACT

This document represents an analysis of information on innovative ground-water

remediation demonstration projects as described in the Completed North American

Innovative Remediation Technology Demonstration Projects (EPA 542-B-96-002). This

report summarizes key information on 259 completed demonstration soil and groundwater remediation projects, including those performed, co-sponsored, or funded through

programs developed by U.S. EPA., military services, DOE, Canadian government, and

States of California and New Jersey. Information in the report about these projects includes

contaminants treated, site type, technology type, media, vendor, project sponsor, reports

available, and contacts.

This analysis was prepared for distribution by the Ground-water Remediation Technologies

Analysis Center (GWRTAC). GWRTAC is being operated by the National Environmental

Technologies Application Center (NETAC), under a Cooperative Agreement with EPA’s

Technology Innovation Office.

ii
I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 Introduction 1

2.0 In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment Techniques 3

3.0 Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment Techniques 7

4.0 In Situ Biological Treatment Techniques 11

5.0 Ex Situ Biological Treatment Techniques 14

6.0 Conclusions 16

iii
I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page

1-1 Ground-Water Treatment Techniques 1

1-2 Physical/Chemical Ground-Water Treatment Techniques 1

1-3 Biological Ground-Water Treatment Techniques 2

1-4 General Ground-Water Treatment Methods 2

2-1 In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment 3

2-2 In Situ Physical/Chemical Types of Contaminants Treated 4

2-3 In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment Organic Contaminants 4

2-4 In Situ Physical/Chemical Organic Contaminant Categories 5

2-5 In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment Methods Specific Contaminants 5

3-1 Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment Techniques 7

3-2 Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment Methods Types of

Contaminants Treated 8

3-3 Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Organic Contaminants 8

3-4 Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment Methods Organic

Contaminant Categories 9

3-5 Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment Methods Specific Contaminants 9

4-1 In Situ Biological Treatment per Techniques 11

4-2 In Situ Biological Techniques per Contaminant Class 11

4-3 In Situ Biological Treatment Techniques Organic Compounds 12

4-4 In Situ Biological Treatment Techniques per Halogenated/Nonhalogenated

Organic Compounds 12

4-5 In Situ Biological Treatment Methods Specific Contaminants 12

5-1 Ex Situ Biological Treatment Techniques 14

iv
I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

LIST OF FIGURES (cont.)

Figure Title Page

v

5-2 Ex Situ Biological Treatment Techniques Organic Contaminants 14

5-3 Ex Situ Biological Treatment General Contaminant Categories 15

5-4 Ex Situ Biological Treatment Methods Specific Contaminants 15

6-1 Percentage of Projects Treating Halogenated VOCs 18

6-2 Percentage of Projects Treating Nonhalogenated VOCs 19

6-3 Percentage of Projects Treating Halogenated SVOCs 20

6-4 Percentage of Projects Treating Nonhalogenated SVOCs 20

6-5 Percentage of Projects Treating Inorganics 21

6-6 Percentage of Projects Treating Explosives/Propellants 21

6-7 Percentage of Projects Treating Radionuclides 22

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page

2-1 Contaminants Treated vs. Remediation Method In Situ Physical/Chemical 6

Treatment Techniques

3-1 Contaminants Treated vs. Ex Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment Techniques 10

4-1 Contaminants Treated vs. Remediation Method In Situ Biological

Treatment Techniques 13

5-1 Contaminants Treated vs. Remediation Method Ex Situ Biological

Treatment Techniques 15

6-2 Treatment Methods for Chlorinated Solvents and Petroleum Hydrocarbons 17

6-1 Treatment Techniques Used to Treat Contaminant Categories 19
I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

1

Physical/Chemical (44 projects)

Biological

(17 projects)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This document represents an analysis of information on innovative ground-water

remediation demonstration projects as described in Completed North American Innovative

Remediation Technology Demonstration Projects (EPA 542-B-96-002). This report

summarizes key information on 259 completed demonstration soil and ground-water

remediation projects, including those performed, co-sponsored, or funded through programs

developed by U.S. EPA., military services, DOE, Canadian government, and States of

California and New Jersey. Information about these projects includes contaminants treated,

site type, technology type, media, vendor, project sponsor, reports available, and contacts.

A total of 61 of the over 250 projects summarized in the above document involved the

treatment of groundwater, and are the subject of this report. Of these 61 ground-water

projects, 72% utilized physical/chemical treatment techniques, while 28% utilized biological

methods (see Figure 1-1). Of the 44 projects using physical/chemical methods, 55%

involved in situ technologies and 45% involved ex situ technologies (see Figure 1-2). Of

sites demonstrating biological treatment, 71% utilized in situ methods, while 29% used ex

situ methods (see Figure 1-3). A summary distribution of general ground-water remediation

methods used in projects included in the Completed North American Innovative

Remediation Technology Demonstration Projects report is shown in Figure 1-4.

FIGURE 1-1. GROUND-WATER TREATMENT TECHNIQUES

FIGURE 1-2. PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL GROUND-WATER TREATMENT TECHNIQUES

In situ

(24 projects)

Ex situ

(20 projects)
I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

In situ

(12 projects)

Ex situ

(5 projects)

In Situ Biological

(12 sites)

Ex Situ Physical/Chemical

(20 sites)

Ex Situ Biological (5 sites)

In Situ

Physical/Chemical

(24 sites)

FIGURE 1-3. BIOLOGICAL GROUND-WATER TREATMENT TECHNIQUES

FIGURE 1-4. GENERAL GROUND-WATER TREATMENT METHODS

2
I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

2.0 IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT TECHNIQUES

The 24 projects demonstrating in situ physical/chemical ground-water remediation methods

used 13 different treatment techniques (See Figure 2-1). In situ physical/chemical

remediation methods used for more than one project included:

• Oxidation, 5 projects; (This category includes projects listed as oxidation, advanced

oxidation process, chemical oxidation and evaporation-catalytic oxidation)

• Vacuum extraction, 4 projects (This category includes projects listed as air stripping/

vacuum extraction, steam injection and vapor extraction, vapor extraction and vapor

extraction/steam vapor stripping);

• Air sparging, 2 projects;

• Permeable reaction walls, 2 projects;

• In-well vapor stripping, 2 projects (This category includes projects listed as densitydriven sparging, soil vapor extraction and Unterdruck-Verdamffer-Brunner [UVB]).

FIGURE 2-1. IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT

Organic contaminants were treated in 83% of demonstration projects using in situ physical/

chemical techniques (20 of 25 projects), inorganics were treated in 13% (3 of 25), and

explosives/propellants and radionuclides were treated in 4% of projects (each 1 of 25)

(See Figure 2-2).

3

In-Well Vapor Stripping (2)

Catalytic Decontamination (1)

Chemical Treatment (1)

Cosolvent Flushing (1)

Electrochemical Reduction/

Immobilization (1)

Pervaporation (1)

Precipitation/Filtration (1)

Dynamic Underground Stripping (1) Oxidation (5)

Vacuum

Extraction (4)

Air Sparging (2)

Air Stripping (2)

Permeable Reaction

Wall (2 projects)
I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

FIGURE 2-2. IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TYPES OF CONTAMINANTS TREATED

NOTE: Some projects involved treatment of more than one type of contaminant.

Of the in situ physical/chemical projects involving organic contaminants (many of which

treated more than one type of organic contaminant), halogenated organics were treated

in 6 projects, nonhalogenated organics in 6 projects, and 8 projects treated both halogenated

and nonhalogenated organic contaminants (See Figure 2-3). Halogenated and

nonhalogenated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were treated in 70% of projects (14

of 20), nonhalogenated semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) were treated in 35% of

projects (7 of 20), halogenated VOCs in 15% (3 projects), and explosives/propellants at

5% (1 project) (See Figure 2-4).

FIGURE 2-3. IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT

ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS

Organics (20 projects)

Inorganics (3 projects)

Radionuclides (1 project)

Explosives/

Propellants

(1 project)

Nonhalogenated

(6 projects)

Halogenated

Both (6 projects) (8 projects)

4
I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

FIGURE 2-4. IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL ORGANIC CONTAMINANT

CATEGORIES

NOTE: Some projects involved treatment of more than one type of contaminant.

The distribution of specific contaminants treated via in situ physical/chemical methods is

illustrated in Figure 2-5. The most common contaminants treated included TCE (7 projects),

BTEX (6 projects), and PCE (5 projects). Table 2-1 shows the specific types of in situ

physical/chemical treatment techniques used for specific contaminants.

FIGURE 2-5. IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT METHODS

SPECIFIC CONTAMINANTS (where indicated)

Explosives/Propellants

(1 project)

Nonhalogenated

SVOCs (7 projects)

Halogenated

SVOCs (3 projects)

Halogenated

VOCs (14 projects)

Nonhalogenated

VOCs (14 projects)

TCE (7 projects)

BTEX (6)

PCE (5)

Inorganics (2) TCA (2)

PAH (1)

Sodium dichromate (1)

RDX (1)

TNT (1)

Hydrogen Peroxide (1)

DCE (1)

Radionuclides (1)

TPH (1)

JP-5 (1)

FHC (1)

Benzene (1)

5
6 I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

GWRTAC

TABLE 2-1

CONTAMINANTS TREATED vs. REMEDIATION METHOD

IN SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT TECHNIQUES

CONTAMINANT

METHOD TCE BTEX PCE TCA INORGANICS OTHER

Oxidation 1 - - - - 1 (TNT,RDX)

1 (Hydrogen peroxide, various fuels)

2 (VOCs)

1 (SVOCs)

Vacuum Extraction - - - - - 1 (VOCs, Volatile fuel)

Air Sparging 1 2 1 - - -

Treatment Walls 1 1 1 - - 1 (DCE)

In-Well Vapor Stripping - 1 - - - 1 (TPH)

1 (VOCs)

Catalytic Decontamination - - - - - 1 (VOCs)

Chemical Treatment - - - - 1 -

Cosolvent Flushing 1 1 1 1 - 1 (PAH)

Electrochemical Reduction/

Immobilization

- - - - 1 (Sodium

dichloride)

-

Pervaporation - - - - - 1 (Hydrocarbons)

Precipitation/Filtration - - - - - 1 (Naturally occurring radioactive

material)

Dynamic Underground Stripping - 1 - - - 1 (FHC, Benzene)

Air Stripping 2 - 2 1 - -

Air Stripping/Vapor Extraction - - - - - 1 (Chlorinated solvents)

Steam Injection and Vapor Extraction - - - - - 1 (JP-5)

Vapor Extraction/Steam Vapor Stripping 1 - - - - 1 (VOCs)

NOTE: Several projects involved the treatment of more than one type of contaminant.
I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

3.0 EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT TECHNIQUES

Figure 3-1 shows the types of ex situ physical/chemical treatment techniques used in

completed demonstration projects. The most common include:

• Groundwater extraction and air stripping, 30% or 6 of 20 projects;

• Oxidation (including ground-water extraction and oxidation, photochemical oxidation,

UV oxidation, and peroxidation), 25% or 5 of 20 projects;

• Membrane filtration, 10% or 2 of 20 projects.

The types of contaminants treated using ex situ physical/chemical techniques is illustrated

in Figure 3-2. Organic compounds were treated in 16 of 20 projects (80%), inorganic

compounds in 5 of 20 projects (25%), and radionuclides in 1 of 20 projects (5%).

FIGURE 3-1. EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT TECHNIQUES

Solar Detoxification (1)

Separator-FilterCoalescer (1)

Polishing Filter (1)

High Energy Electron

Irradiation (1)

Gas-phase Chemical

Reduction (1)

Chemical Treatment (1)

Chemical Fixation/

Solidification (1)

Membrane

Filtration (2)

Ground-water Extraction

and Air Stripping (6 projects)

Oxidation (5)

7
I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

FIGURE 3-2. EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT METHODS

TYPES OF CONTAMINANTS TREATED

NOTE: Some projects involved treatment of more than one type of contaminant.

The distribution of types of organic contaminants treated in ex situ physical/chemical

demonstration projects are shown in Figures 3-3 and 3-4. As seen in Figure 3-3,

halogenated organics were treated in 10 of the 16 projects. Nonhalogenated organics

and both halogenated and nonhalogenated organics were treated in 3 projects each. The

numbers of projects treating halogenated and nonhalogenated VOCs and SVOCs using

ex situ physical/chemical methods are shown in Figure 3-4.

FIGURE 3-3. EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS

Organics (16 projects)

Radionuclides (1 project)

Inorganics

(5 projects)

Nonhalogenated

(3 projects)

Both

(3 projects)

Halogenated (10 projects)

8
I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

FIGURE 3-4. EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT METHODS

ORGANIC CONTAMINANT CATEGORIES

NOTE: Some projects involved treatment of more than one type of contaminant.

Figure 3-5 shows the distribution of specific contaminants treated using ex situ physical/

chemical techniques. The most common contaminant remediated was TCE, treated in

35% (7 of 20) of the projects. PCE was treated in 30% (6 of 20) of theprojects, and metals

and DCE were treated in 20% (4 of 20) of the projects each.

FIGURE 3-5. EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT METHODS

SPECIFIC CONTAMINANTS (where indicated)

Table 3-1 shows the ex situ physical/chemical methods used to treat specific contaminants.

Nonhalogenated VOCs

(5 projects)

Halogenated VOCs

(11 projects)

Halogenated SVOCs

(4 projects)

Nonhalogenated SVOCs

(2 projects)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Number of Projects

TCE PCE Metals DCE BTEX PCBs DCA PAHs Dioxins TCA PCPs Radionuclides

Type of Contaminant

9
10 I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

GWRTAC

TABLE 3-1

CONTAMINANTS TREATED vs. EX SITU PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT TECHNIQUES

METHOD CONTAMINANT

TCE PCE DCE METALS BTEX PCBs DCA VOCs OTHER

Chemical

fixation/solidification

- - - 1 - - - - 1 (PCPs)

Chemical treatment - - - 1 - - - - -

Gas-phase chemical

reduction

- - - - - 1 - - 1 (PAHs,

Dioxins)

Groundwater extraction

& air stripping

4 4 3 - 2 - 1 - 1 (TCA)

Groundwater extraction

& oxidation

- 1 1 - - 1 - - -

High-energy electron

irradiation

- - - - - - - - 1 (Chlorinated

solvents and

fuels)

Membrane filtration - - - - - - - - 1 (Hazardous

waste)

Oxidation - - - - - - - - -

- Photochemical 1 - - - - - - - 1 (VOCs,

SVOCs)

- UV oxidation 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 (Halogenated

VOCs)

- Peroxidation 1 1 - - - - 1 - -

Polishing filter - - - 1 - - - - 1

(Radionuclides)

Separator-filtercoalescer- - - - - - - - 1

(Hydrocarbons)

Solar detoxification - - - - - - - - 1 (VOCs)

NOTE: Several projects involved the treatment of more than one type of contaminant.
I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

4.0 IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT TECHNIQUES

In situ biological treatment methods were used in 12 of the completed demonstration

projects as shown in Figure 4-1. Bioremediation/biological treatment was the most common

technique, used in 50% of these projects. Organic contaminants were treated in 92% (11

of 12) of these projects (See Figure 4-2), and of the 11 projects in which organics were

treated, 6 involved nonhalogenated organics, 4 involved halogenated organics, and one

project treated both types of organic compounds (See Figure 4-3). Figure 4-4 shows the

breakdown of organic contaminants treated by halogenated and nonhalogenated VOCs

and SVOCs. Eight projects involved the treatment of SVOCs, seven treating

nonhalogenated SVOCs and one treating halogenated SVOCs. Twelve projects involved

the treatment of VOCs, eight nonhalogenated and four halogenated. Specific contaminants

treated via in situ biological treatment methods are shown in Figure 4-5 and a matrix of

methods used to treat specific contaminants is presented in Table 4-1.

FIGURE 4-1. IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PER TECHNIQUES

FIGURE 4-2. IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES PER CONTAMINANT CLASS

Organics (11 projects)

Inorganics (1 project)

11

Biodegradation

(2 projects)

Bioremediation (5)

Bioslurping (1)

Bioventing (1)

UVB (1)

Bio-Fix Beads (1)

Biological Treatment (1)
I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

FIGURE 4-3. IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT TECHNIQUES

ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

FIGURE 4-4. IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT TECHNIQUES PER

HALOGENATED/NONHALOGENATED ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

NOTE: Several projects involved the treatment of more than one type of contaminant.

FIGURE 4-5. IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT METHODS

SPECIFIC CONTAMINANTS (where indicated)

NOTE: Several projects involved the treatment of more than one type of contaminant.

Nonhalogenated

(6 projects)

Both (1 project) Halogenated

(4 projects)

Halogenated

VOCs (4 projects)

Nonhalogenated

VOCs (6 projects)

Halogenated

SVOCs (1 project)

Nonhalogenated

SVOCs (5 projects)

TCE

(3 projects)

Hydrocarbons (2)

PAHs (1)

DCE (1)

TPH (1)

TCA (1)

BTEX (1)

PCP (1)

12
13 I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

GWRTAC

TABLE 4-1

CONTAMINANTS TREATED vs. REMEDIATION METHOD

IN SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT TECHNIQUES

CONTAMINANT

METHOD TCE Fuels, oils, and

nonhalogenated solvents

Hydrocarbons Other

Bio-Fix beads - - - 1 (Heavy metals)

Biodegradation - 2 - -

Biological treatment 1 - - -

Bioremediation 1 - - 1 (TCA)

1 (BTEX)

1 (PAHs, PCP)

Augmented subsurface

bioremediation

- - 1 -

Bioslurping - - - 1 (TPH)

Bioventing - - 1 -

UVB

(in-well vapor stripping)

1 - - 1 (DCE)

NOTE: Several projects involved the treatment of more than one type of contaminant.
I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

5.0 EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT TECHNIQUES

Of the 61 completed North American demonstration projects, 5 involved ex situ biological

treatment techniques. Specific methods utilized are shown in Figure 5-1. All of these 5

projects involved the treatment of organic contaminants, with 2 projects involving

halogenated organics, 1 nonhalogenated organics, and 2 both halogenated and

nonhalogenated organic contaminants (See Figure 5-2). As shown in Figure 5-3, 4 projects

involved the treatment of volatile organic contaminants (2 halogenated and 2

nonhalogenated) and 5 projects involved the treatment of semivolatile organics (3

halogenated and 2 nonhalogenated). Figure 5-4 shows the distribution of projects utilizing

ex situ biological techniques among specific contaminants. Table 5-1 presents a matrix of

ex situ biological remediation methods and the specific contaminants treated via these

methods.

FIGURE 5-1. EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT TECHNIQUES

FIGURE 5-2. EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT TECHNIQUES

ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS

Nonhalogenated

(1 project)

Both (2 projects)

Halogenated

(2 projects)

14

Bioremediation

(2 projects)

Aerobic Biodegradation

(1 project)

Biodegradation

(1 project)

Biological Aqueous

Treatment (1 project)
I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

FIGURE 5-3. EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT

GENERAL CONTAMINANT CATEGORIES

NOTE: Several projects involved the treatment of more than one type of contaminant.

FIGURE 5-4. EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT METHODS

SPECIFIC CONTAMINANTS (where specified)

Halogenated VOCs

(2 projects)

Nonhalogenated

VOCs

(2 projects)

Halogenated SVOCs

(3 projects)

Nonhalogenated

SVOCs (2 projects)

TABLE 5-1

CONTAMINANTS TREATED vs. REMEDIATION METHOD

EX SITU BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT TECHNIQUES

CONTAMINANT

METHOD TCE PCE PCP BTEX PAHs Organics Phenolics

Aerobic degradation 1 1 - - - - -

Biodegradation 1 - - - - - -

Biological aqueous

treatment

- -1 - - - -

Bioremediation - - - 1 1 - 1

15

TCE (2 projects)

PCE (1 project)

PCP

(1 project)

BTEX

(1 project)

PAHs

(1 project)

Phenolics

(1 project)
I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

• Physical/chemical treatment techniques were demonstrated in over 2.5 times more

projects than biological techniques.

• In situ techniques were demonstrated in approximately 59% of the projects detailed.

The trend toward in situ methods was more prevalent in biological demonstrations,

where 71% of projects utilized in situ techniques.

• In situ and ex situ applications of oxidation processes were the most common physical/

chemical treatment methods, utilized in 23% of all physical/chemical demonstration

projects.

• Organic contaminants were treated in significantly more projects than inorganics using

both physical/chemical and biological techniques (82% and 94%, respectively).

• Physical/chemical remediation techniques were used to treat a greater range of

contaminants, including radionuclides and explosives/propellants not treated using

biological methods.

• Table 6-1 shows the percentages of projects treated by the various techniques with

respect to contaminant category.

- The percentage of projects utilizing physical/chemical treatment techniques to treat

halogenated volatile contamination was 1.5 times greater than the percentage of

projects using biological methods. The distribution of projects treating halogenated

VOCs was approximately equal for in situ and ex situ applications (See Figure 6-1).

- Nonhalogenated volatiles were treated in approximately equal percentages of

physical/chemical and biological projects, but the percentage of in situ methods

was approximately twice as high as the percentage of projects using ex situ methods

(See Figure 6-2).

- Halogenated semivolatile organics were treated in approximately 1.5 times the

percentage of projects demonstrating biological techniques as physical/chemical

techniques. The percentage of ex situ applications for halogenated SVOC treatment

was twice as high as for in situ remediation methods (See Figure 6-3).

- The percentage of projects demonstrating biological treatment techniques to treat

nonhalogenated SVOCs was approximately twice the percentage using physical/

chemical techniques, and the percentage of projects using in situ methods was

approximately twice that of projects using ex situ methods for nonhalogenated

SVOCs (See Figure 6-4).

- The percentage of physical/chemical demonstration projects treating inorganic

contamination is 3 times higher than biological methods, while 1.5 times the

percentage of projects used ex situ as opposed to in situ methods to treat inorganics

(See Figure 6-5).

16
17 I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

GWRTAC

TABLE 6-1

TREATMENT TECHNIQUES USED TO TREAT CONTAMINANT CATEGORIES

CONTAMINANT CATEGORY

VOCs SVOCs

METHOD Halogenated Nonhalogenated Halogenated Nonhalogenated Inorganics Explosives/

Propellants

Radionuclides

Physical/

Chemical

57% 43% 16% 20% 20% 2% 5%

Biological 35% 47% 24% 41% 6% 0% 0%

In situ 50% 56% 11% 33% 14% 3% 3%

Ex situ 52% 28% 28% 16% 20% 0% 4%

NOTE: Several projects involved the treatment of more than one type of contaminant.
I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

- Only in situ physical/chemical techniques were used to treat explosives/propellants

in completed demonstration projects (See Figure 6-6).

- Only physical/chemical remediation methods were used to address radionuclide

contamination, with approximately equal percentages of in situ and ex situ

applications used to treat radionuclides (See Figure 6-7).

• Contaminants most commonly treated in completed demonstration projects were:

- Chlorinated solvents including PCE, TCE, TCA, DCE, and DCA; and

- Petroleum hydrocarbon-related contaminants including BTEX, TPH, fuels, oils,

hydrocarbons.

Chlorinated solvents made up at least one-third of the contaminants treated using physical/

chemical, biological, in situ, and ex situ remediation methods (See Table 6-2). Petroleum

hydrocarbons made up greater than one-third of all contaminants treated using physical/

chemical, biological, and in situ methods and approximately one-fourth of the contaminants

treated using ex situ techniques.

FIGURE 6-1. PERCENTAGE OF PROJECTS TREATING HALOGENATED VOCs

18

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Percent of Projects

In Situ Physical/Chemical Ex Situ Physical/Chemical In Situ Biological Ex Situ Biological

Treatment Method
I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

TABLE 6-2. TREATMENT METHODS FOR CHLORINATED SOLVENTS

AND PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS

CONTAMINANT

METHOD CHLORINATED

SOLVENTS

PETROLEUM

HYDROCARBONS

Physical/chemical 39% 34%

Biological 35% 41%

In situ 33% 44%

Ex situ 44% 24%

NOTE: Several projects involved the treatment of more than one type of contaminant.

FIGURE 6-2. PERCENTAGE OF PROJECTS TREATING NONHALOGENATED VOCs

19

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Percent of Projects

In Situ Physical/Chemical Ex Situ Physical/Chemical In Situ Biological Ex Situ Biological

Treatment Method
I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

FIGURE 6-3. PERCENTAGE OF PROJECTS TREATING HALOGENATED SVOCs

FIGURE 6-4. PERCENTAGE OF PROJECTS TREATING NONHALOGENATED

SVOCs

20

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Percent of Projects

In Situ Physical/Chemical Ex Situ Physical/Chemical In Situ Biological Ex Situ Biological

Treatment M ethod

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Percent of Projects

In Situ Physical/Chemical Ex Situ Physical/Chemical In Situ Biological Ex Situ Biological

Treatment Method
I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

FIGURE 6-5. PERCENTAGE OF PROJECTS TREATING INORGANICS

FIGURE 6-6. PERCENTAGE OF PROJECTS TREATING

EXPLOSIVES/PROPELLANTS

21

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Percent of Projects

In Situ Physical/Chemical Ex Situ Physical/Chemical In Situ Biological Ex Situ Biological

Treatment Method

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

Percent of Projects

In Situ Physical/Chemical Ex Situ Physical/Chemical In Situ Biological Ex Situ Biological

Treatment Method
I Series: TI-97-01

North American Innovative Remediation

Technology Demonstration Database

FIGURE 6-7. PERCENTAGE OF PROJECTS TREATING RADIONUCLIDES

22

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

Percent of Projects

In Situ Physical/Chemical Ex Situ Physical/Chemical In Situ Biological Ex Situ Biological

Treatment Method