National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×

Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup

From Concept to Commercialization

Committee on Innovative Remediation Technologies

Water Science and Technology Board

Board on Radioactive Waste Management

Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources

National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
1997

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.

This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.

Support for this project was provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Agreement No. CR 82307, the U.S. Department of Energy under Agreement No. DE-FC01-94EW54069, and the Department of Defense under DACA87-94-C-0043. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Innovations in ground water and soil cleanup : from concept to commercialization / Committee on Innovative Remediation Technologies, Water Science and Technology Board, Board on Radioactive Waste Management, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, National Research Council.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.

ISBN 0-309-06358-2

1. Hazardous waste site remediation. 2. Hazardous waste management industry—Technological innovations. I. National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Innovative Remediation Technologies.

TD1030.I56 1997

628.5—dc21 97-21190

Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization is available from the
National Academy Press,
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055 (1-800-624-6242; http://www.nap.edu).

Cover art by Y. David Chung. Chung is a graduate of the Corcoran School of Art in Washington, D.C. He has exhibited his work throughout the country, including at the Whitney Museum in New York, the Washington Project for the Arts in Washington, D.C., and the Williams College Museum of Art in Williamstown, Massachusetts.

Copyright 1997 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×

COMMITTEE ON INNOVATIVE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

P. SURESH C. RAO, Chair,

University of Florida, Gainesville

RICHARD A. BROWN, Vice-Chair,

Fluor Daniel GTI, Trenton, New Jersey

RICHELLE M. ALLEN-KING,

Washington State University, Pullman

WILLIAM J. COOPER,

University of North Carolina, Wilmington

WILFORD R. GARDNER,

University of California, Berkeley

MICHAEL A. GOLLIN,

Spencer & Frank, Washington, D.C.

THOMAS M. HELLMAN,

Bristol-Myers Squibb, New York, New York

DIANE F. HEMINWAY,

Citizens' Environmental Coalition, Medina, New York

RICHARD G. LUTHY,

Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

ROGER L. OLSEN,

Camp Dresser & McKee, Denver, Colorado

PHILIP A. PALMER,

DuPont Specialty Chemicals, Wilmington, Delaware

FREDERICK G. POHLAND,

University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

ANN B. RAPPAPORT,

Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts

MARTIN N. SARA,

RUST Environment & Infrastructure, Oak Brook, Illinois

DAG M. SYRRIST,

Vision Capital, Boston Massachusetts

BRIAN J. WAGNER,

U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California

Staff

JACQUELINE A. MACDONALD, Study Director

ANGELA F. BRUBAKER, Research Assistant (through May 14, 1997)

ELLEN A. DE GUZMAN, Project Assistant

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×

WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD

DAVID L. FREYBERG, Chair,

Stanford University, California

BRUCE E. RITTMANN, Vice-Chair,

Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

LINDA M. ABRIOLA,

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

JOHN BRISCOE,

The World Bank, Washington, D.C.

WILLIAM M. EICHBAUM,

The World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.

WILFORD R. GARDNER,

University of California, Berkeley

EVILLE GORHAM,

University of Minnesota, St. Paul

THOMAS M. HELLMAN,

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, New York, New York

CHARLES D. D. HOWARD,

Charles Howard & Associates, Ltd., Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

CAROL A. JOHNSTON,

University of Minnesota, Duluth

WILLIAM M. LEWIS, JR.,

University of Colorado, Boulder

JOHN W. MORRIS,

J. W. Morris, Ltd., Arlington, Virginia

CHARLES R. O'MELIA,

Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

REBECCA T. PARKIN,

American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.

IGNACIO RODRIGUEZ-ITURBE,

Texas A&M University, College Station

FRANK W. SCHWARTZ,

Ohio State University, Columbus

HENRY J. VAUX, JR.,

University of California, Riverside

Staff

STEPHEN D. PARKER, Staff Director

SHEILA D. DAVID, Senior Staff Officer

CHRIS ELFRING, Senior Staff Officer

JACQUELINE A. MACDONALD, Senior Staff Officer

GARY D. KRAUSS, Staff Officer

M. JEANNE AQUILINO, Administrative Associate

ANITA A. HALL, Administrative Assistant

ANGELA F. BRUBAKER, Research Assistant

ELLEN A. DE GUZMAN, Project Assistant

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×

BOARD ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT

MICHAEL C. KAVANAUGH, Chair,

Malcolm Pirnie, Oakland, California

B. JOHN GARRICK, Vice-Chair,

PLG, Inc., Newport Beach, California

JOHN F. AHEARNE,

Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, Duke University, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

JEAN M. BAHR,

University of Wisconsin, Madison

SOL BURSTEIN,

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

ANDREW P. CAPUTO,

Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C.

MELVIN W. CARTER,

Atlanta, Georgia

PAUL P. CRAIG,

Sierra Club, Martinez, California

MARY R. ENGLISH,

University of Tennessee, Knoxville

DARLEANE C. HOFFMAN,

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Oakland, California

JAMES H. JOHNSON, JR.,

Howard University, Washington, D.C.

ROBERT H. MEYER,

Keystone Scientific, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado

CHARLES McCOMBIE,

NAGRA, Wettingen, Switzerland

D. WARNER NORTH,

Decision Focus, Inc., Mountain View, California

PAUL SLOVIC,

Decision Research, Eugene, Oregon

BENJAMIN L. SMITH,

Columbia, Tennessee

Staff

KEVIN D. CROWLEY, Staff Director

ROBERT S. ANDREWS, Senior Staff Officer

KARYANIL T. THOMAS, Senior Staff Officer

THOMAS E. KIESS, Staff Officer

SUSAN B. MOCKLER, Research Associate

LISA J. CLENDENING, Administrative Associate

REBECCA BURKA, Senior Project Assistant

ROBIN L. ALLEN, Senior Project Assistant

PATRICIA A. JONES, Senior Project Assistant

ANGELA R. TAYLOR, Project Assistant

ERIKA L. WILLIAMS, Research Assistant

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×

COMMISSION ON GEOSCIENCES, ENVIRONMENT, AND RESOURCES

GEORGE M. HORNBERGER, Chair,

University of Virginia, Charlottesville

PATRICK R. ATKINS,

Aluminum Company of America, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

JAMES P. BRUCE,

Canadian Climate Program Board, Ottawa, Ontario

WILLIAM L. FISHER,

University of Texas, Austin

JERRY F. FRANKLIN,

University of Washington, Seattle

THOMAS E. GRAEDEL,

Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut

DEBRA S. KNOPMAN,

Progressive Foundation, Washington, D.C.

KAI N. LEE,

Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts

PERRY L. MCCARTY,

Stanford University, California

JUDITH E. MCDOWELL,

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts

RICHARD A. MESERVE,

Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C.

S. GEORGE PHILANDER,

Princeton University, New Jersey

RAYMOND A. PRICE,

Queen's University at Kingston, Ontario, Canada

THOMAS C. SCHELLING,

University of Maryland, College Park

ELLEN K. SILBERGELD,

University of Maryland Medical School, Baltimore

VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL,

Landers and Parsons, Tallahassee, Florida

E-AN ZEN,

University of Maryland, College Park

Staff

STEPHEN RATTIEN, Executive Director

STEPHEN D. PARKER, Associate Executive Director

MORGAN GOPNICK, Assistant Executive Director

GREGORY H. SYMMES, Reports Officer

JEANETTE SPOON, Acting Administrative Officer

SANDI S. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Associate

MARQUITA S. SMITH, Administrative Assistant/Technology Analyst

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice-chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×

Preface

Analysts have estimated that the total cost of cleaning up some 300,000 to 400,000 contaminated sites, located on both public- and private-sector facilities, could reach approximately $500 billion to $1 trillion (see Chapter 1). Even if such a staggering cost were indeed incurred, there is no guarantee that available technologies will clean up all of these sites to meet legal requirements. Furthermore, innovative remediation technologies that hold considerable potential for providing enhanced soil and ground water cleanup are infrequently selected by waste site managers, remediation consultants, site owners, and regulators—all of whom may be risk averse and concerned about the possible failure of new technologies to deliver on their potential. In many cases, government agencies and corporations spend large sums on new technology development and testing, but site managers do not select the new technologies at federal or corporate sites. This paradoxical situation has produced a considerable debate among all parties concerning how to fix the waste site remediation problem.

Two types of broad solutions to the problems of contaminated site remediation are receiving increasing attention. First, there are increasing attempts to prioritize sites that need immediate attention and then to reconsider the remediation end points based on site-specific risk assessments at sites judged to have low risks. A relaxation of cleanup goals is being sought at some sites. Some observers perceive this strategy as remediation of the regulations rather than the contaminated sites. Nevertheless, this risk-based, site-specific approach is increasingly popular among both government agencies and private companies confronted with budgetary constraints. But, several questions about the validity of this approach and how to implement it remain unanswered: Who is engaged in the

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×

process of determining the criteria by which the sites are prioritized? How do we determine these less-stringent end points? How do we differentiate between risks as determined by professional risk assessors or by site owners and those perceived by residents near contaminated sites?

The second type of solution being explored, and the one addressed in this report, is to promote the development and increased use of innovative remediation technologies. Attempts at remediation have historically favored established technologies: pump-and-treat systems for contaminated ground water and excavation followed by incineration or disposal for contaminated soil. Some would say that even though waste cleanup regulations per se do not specify the type of technology that must be used to meet regulatory cleanup requirements, implementation of the regulations has resulted in a "technology push" paradigm: that is, established technologies are used because they have been used before, so their performance characteristics are well known. Experience over the past two decades has revealed a repeating pattern at many sites, suggesting that this approach has led to less-than-optimal cleanups. The challenge is to create a new policy strategy that marshals appropriate economic and regulatory drivers to encourage innovation in ground water and soil cleanup and better environmental stewardship.

This new approach for site remediation is based on a shift to a policy paradigm that relies on market demand rather than technology push. That is, the market (i.e., client needs for site cleanup) generates the strong forces necessary to propel remediation technology development and commercialization. The current market tends to force technology developers and service providers to seek out reluctant, risk-averse customers and investors. Instead, in the new market, clients (i.e., all types of remediation technology users) actively seek solutions based on new remediation technologies. The primary goal of remediation technology development under this new paradigm is to continually increase the diversity and number of technologies included on the menu of options considered by site owners, regulators, and consultants. Testing at several sites using consistent protocols and making cost and performance data available for peer review comprise the essential elements of technology development. Also, under the new paradigm the various stakeholders, particularly the concerned public living near contaminated sites, must be engaged very early in the evaluation of technologies for site cleanup.

This report summarizes the extended deliberations of a committee of experts in contaminated site remediation and innovative technology commercialization. The 16 committee members represented a balance of viewpoints and included a representative of a public interest organization active in site remediation, a patent attorney, a venture capitalist, and a technology developer, as well as technical experts from universities, environmental consulting firms, and industry. At the committee's six meetings, invited guests representing government agencies, site owners, and technology developers presented to the committee their perspectives

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×

on constraints and opportunities for using innovative technologies for site remediation. To these colleagues, who took time from their busy schedules to speak to us and provide valuable follow-up materials, the committee is extremely grateful.

The diversity of backgrounds and expertise of the committee members and the wide range of opinions held by these members meant that my job as committee chair was to ensure that in its deliberations, the committee moved forward toward its final goal: a consensus view of what might be the new policy paradigm for selection of remediation technologies at sites with contaminated ground water and soil. During our debates, some committee members served as strong forces that pulled the committee in new directions. Other members provided the moderating influences. Still others ensured that the allure of new remediation technologies and financial incentives did not obscure our ultimate goal: responsible environmental stewardship.

When asked to chair the committee, my immediate concern was that my research and teaching experience, which is focused on remediation technology development and testing in an academic setting with only an occasional foray into the consulting world, provided only half the expertise needed to guide our deliberations on commercialization of remediation technologies. It was clear that the committee required the experience and wisdom of a colleague with considerable experience in the ''real world" to provide the other half of the committee's leadership. Dick Brown agreed to co-chair the committee to offer his practical experience gained from two decades of developing and implementing remediation technologies at a large number of contaminated sites. I appreciate his advice and support.

Another element responsible for the success of this project was the open-mindedness of committee members. Committee members not only articulated their own ideas and positions forcefully, but they also were able to listen objectively to others' ideas and positions and, based on these, were willing to transform their arguments into a consensus. I was fortunate to work with a committee in which the members were willing to listen to and thoughtfully consider others' opinions while maintaining a sense of humor if their own suggestions were not readily adopted.

Given the many distractions of the committee members' daytime, paid jobs, it was not always easy to deliver on the commitments made during the inspiring moments of committee meetings. Thus, a disciplined organizer was essential for the successful conclusion of the committee's activities. Jackie MacDonald, the Water Science and Technology Board (WSTB) staff officer who worked with the committee, ensured that the many exciting discussions at meetings were translated into written documents that could be reviewed by others and edited to produce a coherent document. But, Jackie was much more than a passive, behind-the-scenes coordinator; she actively participated in all of our discussions, and she offered insightful comments and input. She repeatedly edited our written contributions to crystallize a logical flow of ideas and to maintain consistency in our

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×

arguments. That she carried out this arduous task while under the considerable stress of a family health crisis is a testimonial to her professionalism and dedication. Angie Brubaker provided the essential administrative support necessary for organizing committee meetings. She also used her considerable organizational and production skills to coordinate the preparation of the many drafts of this report. All of the committee members appreciated, as I do, Angie's help throughout the two year study period.

Several sponsors were early believers in this project and elected to provide the generous financial support needed to launch this study. These sponsors discerned the need for a follow-on study to the 1994 WSTB report Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup (chaired by Mike Kavanaugh and staffed by Jackie MacDonald). On behalf of the WSTB and the committee, I thank Richard Scalf (retired) and Stephen Schmelling of the Environmental Protection Agency's R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory; Sherri Wasserman Goodman, deputy under secretary for environmental security at the Department of Defense, and Colonel James Owendoff, formerly with the Department of Defense; and Clyde Frank, deputy assistant secretary for technology development at the Department of Energy and Gary Voelker, Stephen C.T. Lien, and Stanley Wolf of the Department of Energy for their early insights and strong support of this project. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup was widely popular among government agencies, private-sector companies, remediation practitioners, and academic researchers. We can only hope that the standards set by that earlier WSTB report can be met by our efforts.

As difficult and time-consuming as National Research Council committee activities can be, the reward at the end is always worth the effort: a confluence of diverse ideas of acknowledged experts, so that consensus advice is provided on how good science can influence regulations and serve public policy needs in a timely fashion. I am glad that I had yet another opportunity to participate in this rewarding process.

P.S.C. Rao

University of Florida

Gainesville, Florida

Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×

Postscript: The following poem, which I composed for an early committee meeting, provides a vision of the goals sought by those working to develop and commercialize new remediation technologies.

Imagine for a moment,
a perfect world.

A perfect world of remediation in which
there was no need for regulatory push,
the PRPs always take the high ground
to clean up sites voluntarily,
and they do not litigate to delay;

A perfect world of remediation in which
the sources can always be found with certainty,
and the contaminant plumes
always self remediate intrinsically
or the presumptive remedy was
indeed the best technology for the site;

A perfect world of remediation in which
the stakeholders' concerns were
always addressed early and often,
there were economies of scale up,
there was no Valley of Death
and the investors always made enough profits.

Now, wake up,
stop imagining
and look around carefully
remembering that imagining
an ideal world is just an escape,
from the real world.

But, before you despair,
ask yourself how and act to
transform the real world
into the one you just imagined.

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×
   

BOXES

 

 

   

GRC Environmental: Cash Flow Problems Due to Slow Acceptance of an Innovative Remediation Technology

 

52

   

The Pharmaceutical Industry: How a High Level of Regulation Can Coexist with Innovation

 

57

   

Thermatrix, Inc.: Market Entry Through a Sector with Clear Regulatory Guidelines

 

58

   

Regenesis Bioremediation Products: Carefully Developed Business Plan

 

60

   

Geosafe: Financial Backing from Battelle Essential for Survival

 

64

   

Wichita Innovative Remediation Plan

 

65

   

SEC Requirements for Reporting of Environmental Liabilities

 

67

   

Corporate Environmental Accounting

 

68

3

 

STATE OF THE PRACTICE OF GROUND WATER AND SOIL REMEDIATION

 

80

   

What is Innovative Remediation Technology?

 

81

   

Availability of Information on Innovative Remediation Technologies

 

82

   

State of Innovative Remediation Technology Development

 

87

   

Cleanup of Petroleum Hydrocarbons

 

97

   

Cleanup of Chlorinated Solvents

 

113

   

Cleanup of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

 

120

   

Cleanup of Polychlorinated Biphenyls

 

129

   

Cleanup of Inorganic Contaminants

 

134

   

Cleanup of Pesticides

 

144

   

Conclusions

 

153

   

Recommendations: Technology Information and Dissemination

 

154

   

Recommendations: Technology Research

 

155

   

BOXES

 

 

   

Innovations in Engineered In Situ Bioremediation

 

83

   

Innovations in Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)

 

86

   

A Glossary of Remediation Technologies

 

90

   

History of Development of Bioventing

 

110

   

Metallic Iron Barrier for In Situ Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents: Concept and Commercial Application

 

118

   

Biotreatment of PAHs in Extended Field Trials

 

126

   

Biostabilization of PCBs

 

134

   

Created Wetland for Cleanup of Metals

 

140

4

 

MEASURES OF SUCCESS FOR REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

 

167

   

Stakeholder Criteria for Success

 

170

   

Technical Performance

 

182

Page xvii Cite
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×
   

Commercial Attributes

 

191

   

Public and Regulatory Acceptance Attributes

 

194

   

Conclusions

 

197

   

Recommendations

 

197

   

BOXES

 

 

   

Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE); Technology Success Story

 

171

   

Pine Street Canal: Public Concern Leads to the Search for Innovative Technologies

 

178

   

The Triumph and Caldwell Trucking Superfund Sites: Communities Reject Aggressive Cleanup Remedies

 

180

   

New Bedford Harbor: Citizen Opposition Halts EPA's Cleanup Plan

 

182

5

 

TESTING REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES

 

201

   

Data for Proving Technology Performance

 

202

   

Selecting a Test Site

 

216

   

Site-to-Site Transfer of Technologies

 

227

   

Technology Performance Verification

 

240

   

Data Sharing Through Government and Industry Partnerships

 

245

   

Conclusions

 

246

   

Recommendations

 

247

   

BOXES

 

 

   

Use of Experimental Controls: Evaluating Bioventing at Hill and Tyndall Air Force Bases

 

209

   

Proving In Situ Stabilization/Solidification of Polychlorinated Biphenyls at the General Electric Co. Electric Service Shop, Florida

 

211

   

Proving In Situ Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents at Moffett Naval Air Station, California

 

214

   

Proving In Situ Mixed-Region Vapor Stripping in Low-Permeability Media at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Ohio

 

216

   

Proving In Situ Cosolvent Flushing at Hill Air Force Base

 

218

   

Development of Passive-Reactive Barriers Based on Laboratory Studies

 

222

   

Development of Air Sparging Based on Field Applications Followed by Detailed Studies

 

226

   

NAPL Source Zone Mapping: Use of Tracer Techniques

 

229

   

State Regulatory Policies for Remediation Technology Testing

 

230

   

Selecting a Test Site for Side-By-Side Technology Comparisons

 

232

   

Technology Testing Under the Advanced Applied Technology Demonstration Facility Project

 

236

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×
Page R14
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×
Page R15
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×
Page R16
Page xvii Cite
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×
Page R17
Page xviii Cite
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Research Council. 1997. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5781.
×
Page R18
Next: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY »
Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization Get This Book
×
Buy Hardback | $68.00 Buy Ebook | $54.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Most books on ground water and soil cleanup address only the technologies themselves—not why new technologies are or are not developed. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup takes a holistic approach to the entire field, addressing both the sluggish commercial development of ground water and soil cleanup technologies and the attributes of specific technologies. It warns that, despite cleanup expenditures of nearly $10 billion a year, the technologies remain rudimentary.

This engaging book focuses on the failure of regulatory policy to link cleanup with the financial interests of the company responsible for the contamination. The committee explores why the market for remediation technology is uniquely lacking in economic drivers and why demand for innovation has been so much weaker than predicted.

The volume explores how to evaluate the performance of cleanup technologies from the points of view of the public, regulators, cleanup entrepreneurs, and other stakeholders. The committee discusses approaches to standardizing performance testing, so that choosing a technology for a given site can be more timely and less contentious. Following up on Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup (NRC, 1994), this sequel presents the state of the art in the cleanup of various types of ground water and soil contaminants. Strategies for making valid cost comparisons also are reviewed.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!