TENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON REMEDIATION OF CHLORINATED AND RECALCITRANT ... · 2019-07-18 ·...

1

MAY 22–26, 2016 ú PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA

PRELIMINARYPROGRAM

TENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON REMEDIATION OF CHLORINATED AND RECALCITRANT COMPOUNDS

www.battelle.org/chlorcon

2

4 OVERVIEW

6 GENERAL INFORMATION

12 PROGRAM AT A GLANCE

14 PLATFORM AND PANEL SCHEDULE

16 POSTER SCHEDULE

18 PRESENTATIONS

v Plenary Session

v Breakout Sessions

71 PANEL DISCUSSIONS

76 SHORT COURSES

89 CONFERENCE SPONSORS

CONTENTS

3

CONTENTS

The Conference is organized and presented by BattelleBattelle’s environmental engineers, scientists and professionals offer focused expertise to government and industrial clients in the U.S. and abroad. Combining sound science and engineering solutions with creative management strategies, Battelle works with clients to develop innovative and cost-effective solutions to complex problems in site restoration, risk assessment, hydrogeologic assessment and monitoring and sustainable remediation. Every day, the people of Battelle apply science and technology to solving what matters most. At major technology centers and national laboratories around the world, Battelle conducts research and development, designs and manufactures products and delivers critical services for government and commercial customers. Headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, since its founding in 1929, Battelle serves the national security, health and life sciences and energy and environmental industries.

www.battelle.org

Conference SponsorsBattelle gratefully acknowledges the financial contributions and support of the following Conference sponsors. The corporate descriptions they provided appear on pages 89-94.

www.thermalrs.com

www.regenesis.com

www.panthertech.com

www.insituoxidation.com

www.brownandcaldwell.com

www.aecom.com

www.microbe.com

www.erm.comwww.frx-inc.com

www.obg.com

www.amecfw.com www.hepure.comwww.tandmassociates.com

www.arcadis-us.comwww.woodardcurran.com www.louisberger.com

www.georemco.comwww.microbe.com

www.ch2m.comwww.cascadedrilling.comwww.integratedscience.com

www.cdmsmith.com www.trapandtreat.com

4

OVERVIEW

5

OVERVIEW

The Exhibit Hall, the Welcome Reception, and display of the Group 1 Posters will open Sunday evening, May 22. The Conference Program will begin Monday morning, when Conference Chairs Heather Veith Rectanus and Pamela J. Rodgers, both of Battelle, will conduct the Plenary Session. The theme of the Plenary Session is “The Global Water Crisis.” The featured speaker, Jay Famiglietti, will place the U.S. and California drought in context and discuss what satellite data tells us about climate change and changing groundwater availability in the U.S. and around the globe.

The technical program, to be held Monday afternoon through Thursday, will consist of more than 1,000 platform and poster presentations in 72 breakout sessions, as well as nine panel discussions. Sessions and panels are organized according to major topic areas that will address the innovative application of existing and new technologies and approaches for characterization, treatment and monitoring of chlorinated and other recalcitrant compounds and emerging contaminants in various environmental media.

Risk, regulatory, site management/closure and sustainability issues associated with these technologies will be discussed. Presentations will emphasize field applications, case studies and site closure, but fundamental research and laboratory, pilot and modeling studies also are included.

Additional technical information will be provided by exhibits from more than 100 companies and government agencies engaged in remediation-related activities. Sixteen short courses are scheduled as of January 15 and will be conducted all-day Sunday and Tuesday afternoon.

Receptions and other meals offered throughout the Conference will afford attendees numerous opportunities to meet informally with one another. The Palm Springs Convention Center and adjoining Renaissance Hotel are within easy walking distance of downtown Palm Springs. Conference attendees will find ample sightseeing, shopping and dining options for their free time in the evenings and during the Tuesday afternoon recess.

The Tenth International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds will be conducted May 22–26, 2016, in Palm Springs, California. Like the previous conferences in this series, it is presented and organized by Battelle. Sponsors include other leading organizations active in site remediation research and application. Attendance is expected to be 1,500 to 1,700 scientists, engineers, regulators, and other environmental professionals representing universities, government site management and regulatory agencies, and R&D and manufacturing firms from around the world.

6

Location and ScheduleAll events will be held at the Palm Springs

Convention Center and adjoining Renaissance

Hotel. Exhibits, the Group 1 Poster Display and

the Welcome Reception will open at 6:00 p.m.

Sunday, May 22, and the technical program will

be conducted Monday through Thursday. Short

courses will be held on Sunday and on Tuesday

afternoon. See pages 14-15 for details on the

schedule of Conference events.

Technical Program OverviewThe program will comprise more than 1,000

platform and poster presentations in 72 sessions,

along with nine panel discussions. The sessions

and panels are organized according to the

following major topics.

v Management Strategies

v Emerging Issues

v Green and Sustainable Remediation

v Amendment Technologies

v Remediation Technologies

v Characterization, Fate and Transport

v Advanced Diagnostic Tools and Strategies

v Technology Development, Transfer, and Regulatory Acceptance

v Assessing Remediation Effectiveness

v International Environmental Remediation Markets

v Vapor Intrusion

v Metals

v Management of Petroleum Sites

v Soil and Facility Restoration

GENERAL INFORMATION

7

Platform and Poster Presentations. The

platform sessions will begin Monday afternoon

and conclude Thursday; poster sessions will be

conducted on Monday and Wednesday evenings.

See the Program at a Glance on pages 12-17

for the days on which specific sessions will be

conducted. Platform and poster presentations

scheduled as of January 15, 2016, are listed by

session on pages 20-70.

Panels. The technical program will include nine

panel discussions that will run concurrent with

the technical program. Panel descriptions and

moderators’ and panelists’ names appear on the

pages indicated.

v In Situ Thermal Remediation at the SRSNE Superfund Site—Meeting Regulatory Requirements and Removing 225,000 kg of VOCs from an Overburdened NAPL Source Zone (page 71)

v China’s Emerging Remediation Business, Soon to be One of the World’s Largest (page 72)

v Complex Site Remediation at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico (page 72)

v 1,4-Dioxane’s Emerging Dilemma: What’s a Remediation Manager Supposed to Do? (page 73)

v Pump-and-Treat Exit Strategy: Assessing Whether, When, and How to Make a Change (page 73)

v Programmatic Challenges Related to the PFAS Emerging Contaminant Class (page74)

v A Focus on Geology for Improved Remediation Decision-Making (page 74)

v Vapor Intrusion at the U.S. EPA Indianapolis Duplex: Exploring the Role of Conventional Vapor Migration versus a Sewer Preferential Pathway (page 74)

v Advances in Injectable Activated Carbon (page 75)

Abstracts were due September 15, 2015. Because of the outstanding response to the call for abstracts, we are at program capacity. Therefore, no new abstracts are being accepted for review. Our thanks to everyone who submitted an abstract.

ProceedingsAll platform and poster presenters have been

asked to submit short papers expanding upon

their presentations. The indexed proceedings

will be made available in digital format after the

Conference to registrants who paid standard

industry, government, or student rates.

Final Program/Abstracts/Mobile Scheduling GuideThis Preliminary Program lists all presentations

scheduled as of January 15, 2016. It is subject

to revision (changes of presenters, withdrawals)

in the months leading up to the Conference. To

assist participants in planning their time while at

the Conference, the following program information

resources will be available online by May 13:

v Final Program

v Abstracts for all scheduled presentations

Emails will be sent to all who have registered as of

that date, providing links to the resources.

A printed copy of the Final Program will be

provided with registration material. It is strongly

recommended that participants review the online

version of the abstracts prior to the Conference.

Because of the size of the program—nine panels

and more than 1,000 platform talks and poster

presentations—participants will find that reviewing

the material in advance will be useful.

Short CoursesThe short courses described on pages 76-88

will be offered on Sunday, before the Conference

begins, and on Tuesday afternoon, during a

recess in the program. Courses are open to

both Conference registrants and individuals who

will not be attending the Conference program.

Discounts apply for early payment of fees.

GENERAL INFORMATION

8

Program CommitteeThe Program Committee and the session chairs

performed an extensive, multilevel review of the

1,074 abstracts that were submitted in response

to the Call for Abstracts.

Conference Chairs

Heather Veith Rectanus, Ph.D., PE (Battelle)

Pamela J. Rodgers (Battelle)

Steering Committee Kim Parker Brown, MS, PE (U.S. Navy)

Yunzhou (Joe) Chai, Ph.D., PE (The Dow Chemical Company)

Jim Cummings (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)

Wendy Condit (Battelle)

Ramona Darlington, Ph.D. (Battelle)

Stephanie Fiorenza, Ph.D. (BP)

Nathan W. Hagelin, LEP, CG (Amec Foster Wheeler)

Mandy M. Michalsen, Ph.D., PE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)

Deepti Krishnan Nair (Battelle)

Stephan Pawelczyk (Australasian Land and Groundwater Association)

Russell R. Sirabian, PE, PMP, LEED Green Associate (Battelle)

Meals and ReceptionsFor the convenience of Conference participants,

meals and breaks will be provided on site at no

additional cost to program registrants and exhibit

booth staff. Daily continental breakfasts, morning

and afternoon breaks, three lunches (Monday,

Wednesday, and Thursday) and two light poster

receptions will be provided. An opening Welcome

Reception will be held in the Exhibit Hall Sunday

evening, May 22, for all Conference attendees.

Food and entertainment will be provided.

For other meals, there are restaurants in the

headquarters hotel and nearby. If registrants wish

to bring guests to meals, guest tickets can be

purchased at the Conference Registration Desk;

guest tickets will be priced equal to the cost

incurred by the Conference for each meal.

ExhibitsBooths will be provided by more than 100

organizations that conduct remediation activities

or supply equipment used in such work. Exhibits

will be on display from Sunday evening through

1:00 p.m. Thursday. A list of exhibitors can

be found at www.battelle.org/chlorcon. The

Exhibit Hall will be centrally located adjacent to

the Registration Desk and platform and poster

presentation areas. Daily continental breakfasts,

breaks and receptions will be served, and seating

will be provided in the Exhibit Hall. The Internet

Café/Charging Station will be located nearby.

Student ParticipationUniversity students are encouraged to attend the

Conference and will find participation valuable

to their career development. In addition to

the technical information gained by attending

presentations and visiting exhibits, students

will be able to meet and talk with environmental

professionals representing a wide range of work

experience and employers.

Student Events. To help students get acquainted,

a Student Mixer will be held on Monday evening,

following the poster presentations. The Mixer

will be attended by invited mentors who are

environmental professionals selected from a

variety of public- and private-sector organizations.

Details will be emailed to student registrants by

May 6.

Student Paper Competition. Submissions were

due November 15. The winning papers are

scheduled for presentation at the Conference.

Presenters will be announced at the Plenary

Session; they will receive complimentary

registrations and financial awards to help cover

travel and related costs.

9

Student Event Sponsors. The following

organizations are providing financial support for

the student paper awards and for the mixer.

Sponsors and Additional Sponsorship OpportunitiesAs the Conference presenter and manager,

Battelle gratefully acknowledges support of

the Conference Sponsors recognized on page

2 and the Student Event Sponsors listed above.

Their financial contributions help defray general

operating costs of planning and conducting

the Conference. The corporate descriptions

and website links they provided appear on

pages 89-95.

Internet Café Sponsor. We appreciate the

participation of Chongqing Changyuan Chemical

Corporation, whose contribution has been applied

toward the overall cost of the internet café.

For additional information about sponsorship,

contact Susie Warner at The Scientific Consulting

Group ([email protected]; 301-

670-4990).

Conference RegistrationTechnical Program Registration. Conference

registration can be completed online.

Payment is required to confirm registration.

Registration discounts will apply only to payments

received by the specified dates. Checks will be

accepted for registrations made through March

22, 2016. After March 22, payment can be made

only by major credit card. Purchase orders will not

be accepted.

The technical program fees cover admission to

platform and poster sessions as well as exhibits

and group food functions. In addition, each

person registering at any of the following fees will

receive the proceedings, which will be available in

digital form after the Conference. No one under 18

years of age, unless registered as a student, will

be admitted to any Conference event.

Industry US$955 US$1025

Government US$830 US$ 930

University* US$730 US$ 830

Student** US$440 US$ 490

* The university fee applies to full-time faculty and other teaching and research staff, including post-doctoral students**The student fee is reserved for full-time students through Ph.D. candidates whose fees will be paid by their universities or who will not be reimbursed for out-of-pocket payment. Documentation of current enrollment is required.

PAID AFTERMARCH 22

PAID BYMARCH 22

SUSTAINABLE REMEDIATION FORUMSURF

No financial assistance is available to supportregistration or other costs of attending theConference. Because registration fees are themajor source of funding for the Conferenceand a significant percentage of registrantswill make presentations and/or chairsessions, all presenting authors and sessionchairs are expected to register before theConference and pay the applicable technical-program registration fees.

10

Cancellation. For Conference registration

cancellations received by Friday, January 22,

2016, the registration fee will be refunded less

a $50 service fee. No refunds will be made

after Friday, January 22, 2016, but paid no-

shows will receive all materials covered by their

registration fees. Substitutions for registrants will

be accepted, preferably with advance notice.

If Battelle cancels the Conference or short

courses due to circumstances beyond Battelle’s

reasonable control such as, but not limited to,

acts of God, acts of war, government emergency,

labor strikes and/or unavailability of the event or

exhibition facility, Battelle shall refund to attendee

his/her previously paid registration fee less a

share of event costs incurred by Battelle. This

refund shall be attendee’s exclusive remedy and

Battelle’s sole liability for cancellation of the event

for reasons generally described in this paragraph.

Exhibit Staff Registration. Exhibit-booth staff will

be registered by their exhibit managers. Holders

of booth-staff badges will be admitted to the

continental breakfasts, group lunches, breaks and

general receptions; booth staff also will receive a

copy of the final program. Booth-staff registrants

will not be permitted to attend the technical

program (poster and platform sessions), nor will

they receive the proceedings. Technical program

upgrades may be purchased for exhibit-booth

staff for $575 each when the exhibit manager

registers booth-staff. The number of technical

upgrades that can purchased for booth staff is

limited by the Exhibitor’s booth space size.

Inquiries. Inquiries about registration may be

addressed to The Scientific Consulting Group

(301-670-4990; [email protected]).

Conference Venue

All Conference events will be held at the Palm

Springs Convention Center (277 North Avenida

Caballeros, Palm Springs, CA 92262) and the

adjoining Renaissance Hotel (888 East Tahquitz

Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262).

The Palm Springs Convention Center has well-

appointed and flexible meeting space and

offers expanded exhibit opportunities. From

the Conference registration area, there is an

incredible view of the mountains that lie just

minutes away under clear blue skies. The City

of Palm Springs provides city amenities within

a spectacular desert setting and has been

designated by TripAdvisor as one of the Top 10

U.S. Destinations in 2015.

Located just two miles from Palm Springs

International Airport, the Convention Center and

the adjacent Renaissance Palm Springs Hotel

offer expansive, contiguous meeting and exhibit

space, all on one level and under one roof. As an

attendee, you will have unexcelled opportunities

to network with colleagues during lunches,

receptions, and other breaks in the program

schedule. www.visitgreaterpalmsprings.com

Hotel AccommodationsConference registrants can reserve rooms at the

Renaissance Hotel or Palm Springs Hilton at

the reduced group rate of $149/night (single or

double), plus tax. A percentage of rooms will be

available at the prevailing U.S. Government per

diem rate (plus tax) for U.S. federal, state, and

local government employees. These rates are

good through May 5, 2016, unless the blocks sell

out before that date. The Renaissance Hotel is

connected to the Palm Springs Convention Center

and the Palm Springs Hilton is a short, 1-block

walk away.

11

Group-Rate Reservations. Reservations at the

Renaissance or the Hilton can be made online.

Insert your arrival and departure dates and then

follow the prompts to complete your reservation.

Before submitting your reservation, be sure to

verify that the correct group rate is displayed

and review the payment and cancellation

requirements. Reservations may also be made

by phone (Renaissance: 888-682-1238; Hilton:

800-445-8667 or 760-320-6868). Mention that

you are attending the “Battelle Chlorinated

Conference” to qualify for the group rate. Be

sure to obtain a registration confirmation number

and to inquire about the hotel’s cancellation and

early check-out policies.

Government Reservations. Reservations at the

U.S. Government per diem rate must be made

online using the “Per Diem Rate” link. This link

for only U.S. federal, state or local government

employees (not contractors). Be sure to review

the payment and cancellation requirements.

Government employee ID must be presented at

check-in.

Travel and Local TransportationAir Transportation. Major air service is available

into the Palm Springs International Airport.

Transportation from the airport to the hotels is

available by taxi for approximately $12 one way.

Approximate driving time is 2 hours from L.A.

and San Diego and 4 hours from Las Vegas and

Phoenix.

Hotel Shuttles. Complimentary shuttle service

to-and-from the airport is provided by both the

Renaissance and the Hilton. If you are staying at

the Renaissance, the airport shuttle runs every

half-hour from 5:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m. The pick-up

location is the flagpole directly outside the main

terminal. If you arrive between pick-up times you

may call 760-322-6000 and request a pick-up.

If you are staying at the Hilton, please use the

courtesy phone directly across from the baggage

pick-up area to call 760-320-6868 and request a

pick-up.

Parking. As of January 2016, parking rates at the

hotels include in and out privileges at the rates

below. Note: the Conference cannot validate

parking.

v Renaissance: $22 per day valet/$12 per day self-park

v Hilton: $25 per day valet/$18 per day self-park

v Free parking is available at the Palm Springs Convention Center during the day, overnight parking is not permitted.

12

PROGRAM AT A GLANCE

13

Sunday, May 22, 2016• 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. Short Courses

• 3:00–9:00 p.m. Registration Desk Open

• 6:00–9:00 p.m. Welcome Reception, Exhibits,

Poster Group 1 Display

Monday, May 23, 2016• 7:00-8:30 a.m. Continental Breakfast

• 8:30–10:30 a.m. Plenary Session featuring

keynote speaker, Jay Famiglietti (University of

California, Irvine | NASA Jet Propulsion

Laboratory) (page 18)

• 11:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. General Lunch

• 12:35-3:55 p.m. Platform Presentations

• 4:00-6:30 p.m. Group 1 Poster Presentations

and Reception

Tuesday, May 24, 2016• 7:00-8:30 a.m. Continental Breakfast

• 8:00 a.m.-1:25 p.m. Platform Presentations

• 1:25 p.m. Technical Program Recesses

• Lunch on own, general lunch not provided

• 2:00-6:00 p.m. Short Courses

Wednesday, May 25, 2016• 7:00-8:30 a.m. Continental Breakfast

• 8:00 a.m.-3:55 p.m. Platform Presentations

• Lunch scheduled within each track

• 4:00-6:30 p.m. Group 2 Poster Presentations

and Reception

Thursday, May 26, 2016• 7:00-8:30 a.m. Continental Breakfast

• 8:00 a.m.-3:55 p.m. Platform presentations

• Lunch scheduled within each track • 4:00 p.m. Conference Adjourns

*Specific times are subject to change in the months leading up to the Conference.

The 72 sessions are organized according to the major topics listed below. The nine panel discussions will be presented in a designated track and will run concurrent with the technical program.

See the following pages for additional information:

• Pages 14-15: Overview of the platform sessions and panels to be conducted each day. Times for exhibits, breakfasts, lunches, and receptions.

• Pages 16-17: Poster Sessions in each of the two poster groups.

• Pages 20-70: Titles and authors for the presentations in each session. Titles beginning with an asterisk (*) are to be presented as poster presentations.

• Pages 71-75: Panel discussion descriptions.

• Pages 76-88: Short Course descriptions for the courses offered on Sunday and Tuesday.

Program TopicsRemediation Technologies: Sessions A1-A7

Management Strategies: Sessions B1-B9

Technology Development, Transfer, and Regulatory Acceptance: Sessions C1-C3

Assessing Remediation Effectiveness: Sessions C4-C6

International Environmental Remediation Markets: Sessions C7-C9

Vapor Intrusion: Sessions D1-D6

Metals: Sessions D7-D10

Management of Petroleum Sites: Sessions E1-E5

Soil and Facility Restoration: Sessions E6-E9

Emerging Issues: Sessions F1-F5

Green and Sustainable Remediation: Sessions F6-F10

Amendment Technologies: Sessions G1-G9

Characterization, Fate, and Transport: Sessions H1-H5

Advanced Diagnostic Tools and Strategies: Sessions H6-H8

MONDAY, MAY 23, 20167:00 a.m.–6:30 p.m. Registration, Exhibits, Poster Group 1 Display

7:00–8:30 a.m. Continental Breakfast

8:30–10:30 a.m. Plenary Session

11:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. General Lunch

TUESDAY, MAY 24, 20167:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m. Registration, Exhibits, Poster Group 1 Display


Lunch on own

1:25 p.m. Technical Program Recesses

12:35-3:55 p.m. Platform Sessions

A1. Thermally-Enhanced Remediation Processes

B1. Management of Complex DNAPL Sites

C1. Measurement and Monitoring Technologies and Tools

D1. Assessment and Mitigation of the Vapor Intrusion Pathway

E1. In Situ Remediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons

F1. 1,4-Dioxane

G1. Innovations in In Situ Chemical Oxidation (ISCO) Remediation

H1. Real-Time Analysis Approaches

PANEL (12:35-1:50 p.m.). In Situ Thermal Remediation at the SRSNE Superfund Site: Meeting Regulatory Requirements and Removing 225,000 kg of VOCs from an Overburden NAPL Source ZonePANEL (12:15-3:55 p.m.). China’s Emerging Remediation Business, Soon to be One of the World’s Largest

4:00–6:30 p.m. Poster Group 1 Presentations and RefreshmentsSee pages 16-17 for presentations in Poster Group 1.

8:00 a.m.-1:25 p.m. Platform Sessions

A2. Innovations in Thermal RemediationA3. In Situ Remediation in Low Permeability Zones

B2. Large, Dilute Plume ManagementB3. Timeline of ITRC Guidance on Chlorinated Solvents

C2. Groundwater Modeling AdvancementsC3. Advances in Technology Transfer

D2. Addressing Petroleum Vapor Intrusion at Leaking Underground Storage Sites D3. Use of Innovative Measurement Techniques (e.g., Passive Samplers, Real-Time Sensors)

E2. Management of Complex LNAPL SitesE3. LNAPL Recovery in Challenging Environments

F2. Perfluorinated Compounds—Characterization and AnalysisF3. Perfluorinated Compounds—Remediation

G2. Innovations in In Situ Chemical Reduction (ISCR) RemediationG3. In Situ Biogeochemical (ISBG)

H2. Conceptual Site Model UpdatesH3. Advanced Investigation Tools and Techniques

PANEL (8:00-9:40 a.m.). Complex Site Remediation at Kirtland Air Force Base, New MexicoPANEL (10:30 a.m.-12:10 p.m.). 1,4-Dioxane’s Emerging Dilemma: What’s a Remediation Manager Supposed to Do?

2:00–6:00 p.m. Short Courses

14

WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 20167:00 a.m.–6:30 p.m. Registration, Exhibits, Poster Group 2 Display


Lunch scheduled within each track

THURSDAY, MAY 26, 20167:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m. Registration, Exhibits, Poster Group 2 Display


Lunch scheduled within each track


A4. Characterization and Risk Management in Fractured BedrockA5. Remediation of Bedrock, Karst Aquifers, and Fractured Media

B4. Risk Assessment—Practices, Applications, and Benefits B5. Adopting and Applying Risk-Based Approaches B6. Incremental Sampling

C4. Applications of Mass Flux and Mass Discharge C5. Monitored Natural Attenuation Performance Assessment C6. Lessons Learned from Source Zone Remediation

D4. Risk Assessment and Risk Management (e.g., Tools, Using Multiple Lines of Evidence, Accounting for Background) D5. Assessment and Remediation at Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory D6. Radon Gas

E4. Low-Threat Management and Closure of Complex Petroleum Sites E5. Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD) E6. Phytoremediation

F4. Emerging Contaminants F5. Energetics F6. Case Studies: Evaluating GSR Metrics

G4. Synergies in Technology Coupling G5. Enhancements with Biological Remedies G6. Bench, Pilot, and Treatability Studies

H4. High-Resolution Site Characterization (HRSC) H5. Applying Geologic Concepts to Hydrogeology

PANEL (10:05-11:45 a.m.). Pump-and-Treat Exit Strategy: Assessing Whether, When and How to Make a ChangePANEL (2:15-3:55 p.m.). Programmatic Challenges Related to the PFAS Emerging Contaminant Class

4:00–6:30 p.m. Poster Group 2 Presentations and RefreshmentsSee pages 16-17 for presentations in Poster Group 2.


A6. Supporting and Assessing Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation (EISB) Long-Term PerformanceA7. Lessons Learned with In Situ Technologies

B7. Performance-Based Environmental ManagementB8. Environmental Restoration Best Management Practices (BMPs) B9. Optimization of Remedial Projects and Programs

C7. Regulatory ConsiderationsC8. Challenges in Implementing Remedial TechnologiesC9. Case Studies and Lessons Learned

D7. Heavy Metal and Metalloid Fate and TransportD8. Metals Remediation Approaches D9. Chromium Remediation ApproachesD10. Mine Remediation and Closure Strategies

E7. Bioavailability of Contaminants in SoilE8. Coal Ash Facility Restoration E9. Landfill Management

F7. Incorporating Sustainability to Develop, Advance, and Improve Remediation TechnologiesF8. Reusing and Revitalizing Contaminated Sites F9. Groundwater Conservation and Reuse for Sustainable Remediation and RedevelopmentF10. Methods and Tools for Incorporating Ecological Considerations into GSR

G7. Advances in Amendments and Delivery MethodsG8. Soil MixingG9. Emerging Remediation Technologies

H6. Use of Passive SamplersH7. Compound-Specific Isotope AnalysisH8. Incorporation of Molecular Tools in Site Assessment

PANEL (8:00-9:40 a.m.). A Focus on Geology for Improved Remediation Decision-MakingPANEL (10:05-11:45 a.m.). Vapor Intrusion at the U.S. EPA Indianapolis Duplex: Exploring the Role of Conventional Vapor Migration versus a Sewer Preferential PathwayPANEL (12:10-1:50 p.m.). Advances in Injectable Activated Carbon

15

16

Poster Group 1Display: Sunday 6:00 p.m.-Tuesday 1:00 p.m.Presentations: Monday 4:00-6:30 p.m.

A1. Thermally-Enhanced Remediation ProcessesA2. Innovations in Thermal RemediationA3. In Situ Remediation in Low Permeability ZonesA4. Characterization and Risk Management in Fractured Bedrock

POSTER SCHEDULE

Poster sessions are divided into two groups for display and presentation as shown below. Presenters will be at their posters during the designated presentation periods to discuss their work. Refreshments will be served during the Monday and Wednesday evening poster presentations.

A5. Remediation of Bedrock, Karst Aquifers, and Fractured MediaB1. Management of Complex DNAPL SitesB2. Large, Dilute Plume ManagementB3. Timeline of ITRC Guidance on Chlorinated SolventsB4. Risk Assessment—Practices, Applications, and BenefitsB5. Adopting and Applying Risk-Based ApproachesB6. Incremental Sampling

17

POSTER SCHEDULE

C1. Measurement and Monitoring Technologies and Tools

C2. Groundwater Modeling AdvancementsC3. Advances in Technology TransferC4. Applications of Mass Flux and Mass DischargeC5. Monitored Natural Attenuation Performance

AssessmentC6. Lessons Learned from Source Zone RemediationD1. Assessment and Mitigation of the Vapor Intrusion

PathwayD2. Addressing Petroleum Vapor Intrusion at Leaking

Underground Storage SitesD3. Use of Innovative Measurement Techniques (e.g.,

Passive Samplers, Real-Time Sensors)E1. In Situ Remediation of Petroleum HydrocarbonsE2. Management of Complex LNAPL SitesE3. LNAPL Recovery in Challenging EnvironmentsF1. 1,4-DioxaneF2. Perfluorinated Compounds—Characterization

and AnalysisF3. Perfluorinated Compounds—RemediationG1. Innovations in In Situ Chemical Oxidation (ISCO)

RemediationG2. Innovations in In Situ Chemical Reduction (ISCR)

RemediationG3. In Situ Biogeochemical (ISBG) RemediationH1. Real-Time Analysis ApproachesH2. Conceptual Site Model UpdatesH3. Advanced Investigation Tools and Techniques

Poster Group 2 Display: Wednesday 7:00 a.m.-Thursday 1:00 p.m. Presentations: Wednesday 4:00-6:30 p.m.

A6. Supporting and Assessing Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation (EISB) Long-Term Performance

A7. Lessons Learned with In Situ TechnologiesB7. Performance-Based Environmental ManagementB8. Environmental Restoration Best Management

Practices (BMPs)B9. Optimization of Remedial Projects and ProgramsC7. Regulatory ConsiderationsC8. Challenges in Implementing Remedial

Technologies

C9. Case Studies and Lessons LearnedD4. Risk Assessment and Risk Management

(e.g., Tools, Using Multiple Lines of Evidence, Accounting for Background)

D5. Assessment and Remediation at Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory

D6. Radon GasD7. Heavy Metal and Metalloid Fate and TransportD8. Metals Remediation ApproachesD9. Chromium Remediation ApproachesD10. Mine Remediation and Closure StrategiesE4. Low-Threat Management and Closure of Complex

Petroleum SitesE5. Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD)E6. PhytoremediationE7. Bioavailability of Contaminants in SoilE8. Coal Ash Facility RestorationE9. Landfill ManagementF4. Emerging ContaminantsF5. EnergeticsF6. Case Studies: Evaluating GSR MetricsF7. Incorporating Sustainability to Develop, Advance,

and Improve Remediation TechnologiesF8. Reusing and Revitalizing Contaminated SitesF9. Groundwater Conservation and Reuse for

Sustainable Remediation and RedevelopmentF10. Methods and Tools for Incorporating Ecological

Considerations into GSRG4. Synergies in Technology CouplingG5. Enhancements with Biological RemediesG6. Bench, Pilot, and Treatability StudiesG7. Advances in Amendments and Delivery MethodsG8. Soil MixingG9. Emerging Remediation TechnologiesH4. High-Resolution Site Characterization (HRSC)H5. Applying Geologic Concepts to HydrogeologyH6. Use of Passive SamplersH7. Compound-Specific Isotope AnalysisH8. Incorporation of Molecular Tools in Site

Assessment

18

PRESENTATIONS

Plenary Session

Monday Morning

8:30–10:30 a.m.

Welcome and Opening Remarks

Conference Program Chairs

Heather Veith Rectanus, Ph.D., PE (Battelle)

Pamela J. Rodgers (Battelle)

Presentation of Student Paper Awards

The Global Water Crisis

Jay Famiglietti, Ph.D. (University of California, Irvine | NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

Jay Famiglietti is a hydrologist and professor of Earth System Science and of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of California, Irvine. He is on leave from teaching through June 2016 to serve as the Senior Water Scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) at the California Institute of Technology.

Prof. Famiglietti was the founding director of the UC Center for Hydrologic Modeling (UCCHM), a University of California system-wide center formed to develop state-of-the-art predictive models to address high-priority water issues in California and the western United States. From 2009 to 2014, the UCCHM published a series of high profile publications and reports, led important efforts in science communication and water diplomacy, and built the capacity to advise state and federal government officials on key issues related to climate change and sustainable water resources management. In 2014 he moved the core of the UCCHM to NASA JPL, where he now heads the JPL Water Initiative, a strategic effort to bring the resources of NASA to bear on regional-to-global water and sustainability issues.

Prof. Famiglietti actively communicates water and climate change issues—in academics, in business, in government, and to the general public. He is a regular advisor to the U.S. Congress and the California Governor’s office on water availability and water security issues. He has testified before Congress and has participated in numerous United Nations, White House, State Department, Congressional, Pentagon, and California State Legislature briefings. In 2013, he was appointed by Governor Jerry Brown to the Santa Ana region of the California State Water Boards.

His work is transforming how we look at water, both at home and abroad. He has appeared as a featured expert in the critically acclaimed water documentary Last Call at the Oasis and his work has been covered by the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian and the Economist, as well as by 60 Minutes, Bill Maher, and Fareed Zakaria. Jay has published op-eds in the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle and is a regular contributor to National Geographic Water Currents and the Huffington

19

Post. He has been a frequent guest on several news shows including the CBS Evening News, The Rachel Maddow Show, and the PBS News Hour, as well as National Public Radio and BBC Radio.

Prof. Famiglietti’s research group investigates how the water cycle and freshwater resources are being impacted by climate change. The group develops advanced computer models and use satellite remote sensing to track water availability around the globe. His work has been incorporated into several of the world’s leading global climate models, the complex numerical simulators used to predict and understand global change, and that provide the basis for assessment of future climate in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. Most recently, he and his students have pioneered methods using data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) mission to identify groundwater depletion in the world’s major aquifers. Their work has highlighted unsustainable rates of groundwater use around the globe—from the Central Valley and the High Plains aquifers in the United States, to the Middle East, India, China and Australia.

It is this work, using NASA satellites to track dwindling global freshwater availability, that will be presented in his plenary talk. He will discuss global groundwater depletion, along with the local, Palm Springs’ perspective on groundwater supply and demand issues.

20

Breakout Sessions and PanelsThe 72 sessions are grouped into 8 tracks (A–H). Panel discussions will be presented in a designated track and will run concurrent with the technical program. See the Platform and Panel Schedule tables (pages 14-15) for an overview of the sessions and the days each will be conducted. See the Poster Schedule (pages 16-17) for the days each poster group display and presentation will be conducted.

Listed below are the presentations scheduled as of January 15, 2016. In each entry, the author list appears in italics, and the name and affiliation of the person scheduled to give the presentation follows the author list. Each title beginning with an asterisk (*) is to be presented as a poster presentation.

The schedule is subject to revisions (changes of presenters, withdrawals) in the months leading up to the Conference.

A1. Thermally-Enhanced Remediation ProcessesPlatforms Monday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Mark Kluger (Dajak, LLC) Kira Lynch (U.S. EPA)

Combined Thermal and Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination Remediation at a Former Dry Cleaner Source Area. L.M. Smith, S. Price, M.L. Stallard, and D.M. Laduzinsky.L. Maile Smith (Northgate Environmental Management, Inc./USA)

* Electrical Resistance Heating-Enhanced Processes. E. Crownover, D.W. Oberle, M. Nanista, C. Blundy, and B. Poulin.Emily Crownover (TRS Group, Inc./USA)

Impacts of Low-Energy Thermal Treatment on a Tetrachloroethene-to-Ethene Dechlorinating Consortium. T.F. Marcet, K.D. Pennell, N.L. Cápiro, F.E. Loeffler, and Y. Yang.Tyler Marcet (Tufts University/USA)

Implementation and Performance of Thermally Enhanced Bioremediation for Targeted DNAPL Source Treatment. N.L. Smith, T.W. Macbeth, D.J. Giaudrone, R.E. Chichakli, K. Kunas, C. Cora, K. Lynch, and T. Powell.Neil Smith (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

Remediation of Coal Tar Using Electrical Resistance Heating. D. Oberle, C. Crownover, and J. Lillie.Daniel W. Oberle (TRS Group, Inc./USA)

Sustainable, Low-Temperature In Situ Thermal Remediation Using Dissolved Gases. G. Smith, J. Baldock, and J. Dablow.Gregory Smith (ERM/USA)

Thermal Treatment Enhances Electron Donor Release and Reductive Dechlorination Activity. K.D. Pennell, T.F. Marcet, N.L. Cápiro, F.E. Loeffler, and Y. Yang.Kurt D. Pennell (Tufts University/USA)

Thermally-Enhanced Natural Source Zone Depletion. T. Sale, M. Irianni Renno, S. De Long, and C.J. Newell.Tom Sale (Colorado State University/USA)

A2. Innovations in Thermal RemediationPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Gary Angyal (O’Brien & Gere) Gorm Heron (TerraTherm, Inc.)

Challenges and Lessons Learned Applying In Situ Thermal Remediation to Superfund Sites. E. Davis.Eva L. Davis (U.S. EPA/USA)

* Destroying SVE-Extracted CVOCs Using Aerospace Combustion Down-Well Burner Technology. M.L. Sujata, D.K. Burr, and D. Louks.Mark Sujata (Soil-Therm Equipment, Inc./USA)

* Employing Angled Electrodes for Treatment under an Operating Facility. J. Seeman and K. Batsel.Jake Seeman (TRS Group, Inc./USA)

* ERH Application with Limited Vadose Zone: Vapor Recovery from a Surface Plenum. L. Stauch, B. Morris, and G. Beyke.Lynette Stauch (TRS Group, Inc./USA)

* An Evaluation of Heat-Loss Management Strategies Due to Rapid Groundwater Fluxes during Electrothermal Remediation. P.R. Hegele and B.C.W. McGee.Paul Hegele (McMillan-McGee Corp./Canada)

* Evaporative Cooling: Constraints on Achieving Vadose-Zone Temperature Performance Goals. J. Christiansen, M. Dodson, and G. Healea.Julie Christiansen (Global Remediation Solutions, LLC/USA)

* Ex Situ Thermal Treatment of Contaminated Soil with DDT-DDD-DDE. J. Haemers and H. Saadaoui.Jan Haemers (TPS TECH/Belgium)

* Feasibility Study of In Situ Vitrification of Contaminated River Sediment Using Induction Heating. S-C. Chang, H-W. Chen, H-Y. Wang, L-C. Tsai, and K-C. Yu.Shu-Chi Chang (National Chung Hsing University/Taiwan)

21

* Numerical Simulation of Thermo-Hydro Processes and Multiphase Flow in Porous Media for Efficient In Situ Remediation of Chlorinated Solvents. A. Armandine Les Landes, A-J. Tinet, C. Oltean, and M. Buès.Antoine Armandine Les Landes (A.S.G.A, Université de Lorraine/France)

* Practical Considerations and Lessons Learned during In Situ Thermal Treatment Design and Implementation at Fifteen Sites. J.D. Cole and D.F. Williamson.Jason D. Cole (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Practitioner, Consultant, and Regulatory Perspectives: ERH Application at a California Site. R. Boynton, Y. Yoseph, A.N. Amini, L. Stauch, and J. Lillie.A. Nick Amini (California Regional Water Quality Control Board/USA)

STAR Smouldering Remediation: Sensitivity to Contaminant Remobilization. L. Kinsman, J.I. Gerhard, and J.L. Torero.Jason I. Gerhard (University of Western Ontario/Canada)

* STARx Systems for the Treatment of Contaminated Soils and Liquid Organic Wastes. G. Scholes, G.P. Grant, D. Major, and C. Murray.Grant Scholes (Savron/Canada)

Targeting Subsurface Changes in Lithology Using Vertically Offset, Six-Phase ERH Systems. G. Sandberg, M. Dodson, and G. Healea.Greg Sandberg (Global Remediation Solutions, LLC/USA)

* Thermal Conductive Heating for Soil Remediation at a Complex Site. L. Zeng, S. Abrams, K. Paschl, and K. Parker.Stewart Abrams (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

Thermal In Situ Sustainable Remediation (TISR): Linking Renewable Energy to Sustainable Site Restoration. D.S. Randhawa, C. Flanders, and P. Visser.Davinder S. Randhawa (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* Turning Down the Heat: Demonstrating Thermal Remedy Compliance at a New England Superfund Site. M.A. Apfelbaum, C.M. Rockwell, P.E. Nangeroni, R.L. Pineo, R. Swift, and S. Griepke.Michael Apfelbaum (Woodard & Curran/USA)

* Two-Dimensional Numerical Modeling of STAR to Optimize Ex Situ Soil Treatment System Design. R. Solinger, J.I. Gerhard, G. Grant, and G. Scholes.Rebecca Solinger (Western University/Canada)

* Understanding Subsurface Processes and Contaminant Chemistry: Steps Towards Developing Smarter Heating Strategies. R.M. D’Anjou, M. Dodson, and G. Healea.Robert Michael D’Anjou (Global Remediation Solutions, LLC/USA)

Field-Scale Application of STAR at a Former Manufacturing Facility. J. Vidumsky, M. McMaster, L. deVlaming, M. Auger, L. Jo, D. Major, G. Grant, G. Scholes, and D. Liefl.John Vidumsky (DuPont/USA)

* Finite Element Model For In Situ Electrothermal Remediation. B.C.W. McGee and M.E.J. McGee.Bruce McGee (McMillan-McGee Corp./Canada)

Gas Formation in Sand and Clay during In Situ Thermal Remediation by Electrical Resistance Heating. E.J. Martin, K.G. Mumford, and B.H. Kueper.Kevin Mumford (Queen’s University/Canada)

* Groundwater Plume Evolution Following In Situ Thermal Remediation. R.W. Thompson, C. Ptal, and M. Gefell.Rowan Thompson (Rochester Institute of Technology/USA)

* In Situ Remediation of Coal Tar by STAR: Self-Sustaining Propagation across Clean Gaps. J.K. Brown, J.I. Gerhard, J.L. Torero, and G.P. Grant.Joshua Brown (University of Western Ontario/Canada)

* In Situ Smoldering Combustion for Thermal Remediation of Navy Special Fuel Oil LNAPL at the Yorktown Defense Fuel Supply Point. J. Wang, N. Durant, G. Grant, S. O’Hara, S. Rosansky, R. Sirabian, and M. Stepien.James Wang (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

* In Situ Smoldering Combustion: Lessons Learned from Field Applications of the STAR Technology. G.P. Grant, D. Major, G. Scholes, and S. O’Hara.Gavin Grant (Savron/Canada)

* In Situ Thermal Remediation (ISTR) Using TCH: Applying Aerospace Technology Gas Burners with Heat Recovery to Clean A PCE Site. M.L. Sujata, D.K. Burr, and D. Louks.Mark Sujata (Soil-Therm Equipment, Inc./USA)

* In Situ Thermal Remediation at the SRSNE Superfund Site: Meeting Regulatory Requirements and Removing 225,000 kg of VOCs. B.R. Thompson, J. LaChance, and G. Heron.Bruce R. Thompson (de maximis, inc./USA)

* Microbial Subsurface Repopulation Following In Situ STAR Remediation. G.J. Overbeeke, J.I. Gerhard, E.E. Edwards, L. Lomheim, and G.P. Grant.Gavin James Overbeeke (University of Western Ontario/Canada)

* Minimizing the Environmental Footprint: Thermal Pilot-Study Lessons Learned Implemented at Full-Scale VOC-, SVOC-, and PCB-Contaminated Site. D. Phelan, S. Griepke Nielsen, and D. Macone.Devon Phelan (TerraTherm, Inc./USA)

* = poster presentations

22

World’s Largest ISTD Project—How It Was Completed. G. Heron, K. Parker, W. Leung, S. Nielsen, G. Angyal, and J. Levesque.Gorm Heron (TerraTherm, Inc./USA)

A3. In Situ Remediation in Low Permeability ZonesPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: David Adamson (GSI Environmental, Inc.) Michael Singletary (U.S. Navy)

* Accelerated Property Transfer through Multiple Remediation Technologies in Low-Permeability Soils. P.M. Dombrowski, J. Fairclough, and K. Ali.Paul M. Dombrowski (AECOM/USA)

* Application of EHC ISCR Reagent in a Low-Permeability Aquifer at a Dry Cleaner Site. R. Pickering and F. Lakhwala.Russell Pickering (Pickering, Cole & Hivner, LLC/USA)

* Comparing Two Injection Methods to Distribute EHC into Low-Permeability Soils. K. Kaster, G. Chen, D.M. Patel, J.M. Romig, and J.T. Lyons.Kimberly Kaster (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

EK-Saturate™: A Novel Electrokinetic Method for In Situ Remediation of Vadose Zone Contamination in Low-Permeability Deposits. K. Rugge, L.T. Karlby, J. Wang, N. Durant, D. Gent, and L.M. Fischer.Kirsten Rugge (COWI/Denmark)

Hydrocarbon Source Emission Reduction in Lower-Permeability Layers Using In Situ Sodium Persulfate Interface Treatment. B. Cavanagh, P.C. Johnson, S. Wilson, and E. Daniels.Bridget Cavanagh (XDD Environmental, LLC/USA)

In Situ Bioremediation of Halogenated Aliphatic Contaminants in a Low-Permeability Aquifer Using Lactate Injections. D.M. Patel, J.M. Romig, T.W. Macbeth, G. Chen, K. Kaster, and J.T. Lyons.Dan Patel (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

MNA in Low-K Zones: Fact or Fiction? T.M. McGuire, D.T. Adamson, L.E. Fitzgerald, K.L. Walker, and C.J. Newell.Travis M. McGuire (GSI Environmental, Inc./USA)

A4. Characterization and Risk Management in Fractured BedrockPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Michael J. Gefell (Anchor QEA, LLC) Bernie H. Kueper (Queen’s University)

Contribution to MNA of Abiotic Transformation at a Complex CVOC-Impacted Fractured Bedrock Site in the Northeastern U.S. A. Taddeo, S. Olson, D. Folan, and M. Zenker.Art Taddeo (AECOM/USA)

DNAPL Architecture in Fractured Bedrock: Treatment and Plume Longevity. C.E. Schaefer, G. Lavorgna, E.B. White, and M.D. Annable.Charles Schaefer (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

* High-Resolution Fracture Network Delineation for In Situ Bioremediation Using Fluorescent Tracers and Geophysics. K. Kelly, B. Bond, J. Breiner, and E.B. Dieck.Kevin Kelly (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

Hydraulic Tomography Experiment in a DNAPL-Contaminated Fractured Aquifer, Newark Basin, New Jersey, USA. W. Barrash, C.R. Tiedeman, C. Thrash, and C.D. Johnson.Warren Barrash (Boise State University/USA)

An Integrated Approach to Vapor Intrusion Assessment at a Shallow Fractured Bedrock Site Adjacent to Residential Properties. D.M. Bertrand, T.A. McAlary, N. Barros, D. Wanty, and M. Sylvester.David M. Bertrand (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./Canada)

* Passive, Diffusive Soil Vapor Sampling in Fractured Sandstone at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Ventura County, California. A. Elliott, P.D. Zorba, J.D. Hartley, P. Lawson, J. Hilliard, and J. Parkes.Jim Hartley (CH2M HILL/USA)

Risk Assessment of Ozone Injection into a Limestone Aquifer. L.T. Karlby, J. Albinus, N.P. Arildskov, and H. Milter.Lone Tolstrup Karlby (COWI/Denmark)

* Shallow Groundwater PCE and DNAPL Investigation in Sedimentary Bedrock. J. Finegan, J. Donatucci, and D. Carroll.James M. Finegan (Kleinfelder/USA)

Subsurface Characterization, Modeling, Monitoring, and Remediation of Fractured Rocks. D.A. Reynolds.David A. Reynolds (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./Canada)

Sustainable High-Resolution Site Characterisation Using Integrated Techniques at a Fractured Bedrock Site in the UK. K. Johnson, J. Baldock, P. Crowcroft, N. Gray, and M. Eversman.Kathryn Johnson (ERM/United Kingdom)


23

A5. Remediation of Bedrock, Karst Aquifers, and Fractured MediaPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Thomas Aley (Ozark Underground Laboratory, Inc.) Keith A. White (ARCADIS U.S., Inc.)

* Assessing the Effectiveness of In Situ Chlorinated Bioremediation in Fractured Bedrock through 3-D Visualization and Analysis. E.B. Dieck, B. Bond, R.E. Lees, K. Kelly, S. Abrams, and S. Ueland.Eric B. Dieck (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

* Bioremediation in a Fractured Bedrock Aquifer Using High-Concentration Sodium Lactate. G. Chen, D. Patel, J. Romig, K. Kaster, and J.T. Lyons.Ge (Grace) Chen (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

Challenges and Opportunities of Remediation in a Saturated Epikarst. M.K. Cobb and K.A. White.Michael K. Cobb (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* A Conceptual Framework for Feasibility of Remediating MGP Tar in Fractured Bedrock. S.A. Flewelling, A. Boroumand, and K. Herman.Sam Flewelling (Gradient Corporation/USA)

* Design of ISCO Treatment for PCE in Low-Permeability Bedrock with Discrete Flow Pathways. L.L. Gorday, G. Ulrich, L.L. White, and M.S. Raybuck.Lee Gorday (Parsons Corp./USA)

* Efficiency of Hydraulic Containment as a Chlorinated Ethene Remediation Strategy in a Fractured-Rock Aquifer System. M.A. Widdowson, M.A. Mobile, and F.H. Chapelle.Mark Widdowson (Virginia Tech/USA)

EISB Treatment of Chloroform in Fractured Bedrock via a Recirculation Pilot System. L. MacKinnon, E. Cox, L. Zimmerman, B. Amos, T. Hagemeyer, S. Dworatzek, and D. Woodward.Leah K. MacKinnon (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./Canada)

* Electrochemical Dechlorination of TCE in the Presence of Natural Organic Matter, Metal Ions, and Nitrates in a Simulated Karst Aquifer. N. Fallahpour, X. Mao, L. Rajic, S. Yuan, and A.N. Alshawabkeh.Noushin Fallahpour (Northeastern University/USA)

* Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation of Commingled 1,1,1-TCA and Chlorinated Ethenes in Overburden and Fractured Bedrock. L. Hellerich, K. Ryan, C. Shuman, S. Sharma, and T. Abdul-Matin.Lucas Hellerich (AECOM/USA)

ERH Remediation of Karst Aquifers: Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. B. Hodges, C.S. Wilson, C. Thomas, L. Soos, and C. Crownover.Chris Thomas (TRS Group, Inc./USA)

* Evaluation of ISCO Oxidants and Infiltration Mechanisms within a Tetrachloroethene-Impacted Fractured Bedrock Aquifer. A. Lindley, J. Burdey, and K.R. Rice.Adrien Lindley (Parsons Corp./USA)

Evaluation of Matrix Diffusion and Chlorinated Ethene Concentration Changes during Field-Scale In Situ Chemical Oxidation Pilot Test in Fractured Sedimentary Rock. M.O. Bower, B.L. Parker, J.A. Cherry, P. Pehme, K. Murdock, and M. Barackman.Michael O. Bower (The Boeing Company/USA)

* Field Testing of a Novel High-Pressure Ozone Injection Method for Remediation of Chlorinated Solvent Source Zones in Fractured Limestone. H. Milter, J. Piper, L.T. Karlby, C. Ross, and J.L. Mortensen.Hasse Milter (Region Zealand/Denmark)

* Five Years of Progress and Challenges: Enhanced In Situ Reductive Dechlorination of Trichloroethene/1,1,1-Trichloroethane Source Area in Fractured Bedrock. M.S. Kozar, C. Fogas, M. Hepner, and S.Y. McQueen.Michael Kozar (OBG/USA)

* Groundwater Remediation at 25 Fractured Bedrock Sites: PADEP IRRSC Program, Southeast Region of Pennsylvania. T.S. Cornuet.Thomas Cornuet (OBG/USA)

Improving Detection of Fluorescent Tracer Dyes in Karst Groundwater Remediation by Using Activated Carbon Samplers. T. Aley.Thomas Aley (Ozark Underground Laboratory, Inc./USA)

An Integrated Hydraulic-Fracturing and Push-Pull ISCO Groundwater Remedy in a Crystalline Bedrock Aquifer. E.M. Sterzinar, O.J. Uppal, and B.A. Blum.Erica M. Sterzinar (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

* Laboratory Testing to Evaluate In Situ Thermal Desorption for the Remediation of a Lindane Landfill Fractured-Bedrock Site. R. Espinosa, D. Diaz, and R. Rodriguez.Ruben Espinosa (AECOM/Spain)

* Large-Diameter Nutrient-Delivery Systems for Remediation in Cold Fractured Tills: Two Years Later. J. Grosskleg, T. Carlson, K. Bradshaw, T. Chen, S. Siciliano, and B. Chartrand.Jay Grosskleg (Federated Cooperatives Ltd./Canada)

* Remediating DNAPL from Fractured Bedrock to Prevent Off-Site Migration to a Neighboring Creek. J.R. Woertz, K. Pasternak, and J.C. Wolfe.Jennifer Woertz (AECOM/USA)

Remediation of Commingled TCE and TCA Plumes in Fractured Bedrock via Recirculation and Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination. A. Gupta, M. MacEwan, and G. Carter.Ankit Gupta (AECOM/USA)


24

* Use of Novel, Intact Rock-Core Microcosms to Evaluate Natural and Enhanced Attenuation of TCE in Fractured Sandstone. R. Yu, D.L. Freedman, and R.G. Andrachek.Rong Yu (Clemson University/USA)

* Use of Two Conservative Groundwater Tracers to Evaluate Flow Pathways as Part of a Field-Scale ISCO Pilot Test in Fractured Sedimentary Rock. K.N. Murdock, M.O. Bower, B.L. Parker, J.A. Cherry, T.A. Al, M.J. Barackman, and A.M. Northup.Kevin Murdock (CH2M HILL/USA)

A Vapor Extraction Treatability Test in Fractured Sandstone at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Ventura County, California. A. Elliott, P.D. Zorba, J.D. Hartley, and O. Edwards.Jim Hartley (CH2M HILL/USA)

A6. Supporting and Assessing Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation (EISB) Long-Term PerformancePlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Rick Gillespie (Regenesis)Kent Sorenson (CDM Smith, Inc.)

* Assessing the Biological TCE Anaerobic Reductive Dechlorination Activity by Performing Field In Situ Well-to-Well Tests. H. Ahn, K. Han, U. Hong, and Y. Kim.Hongil Ahn (Yonker Environmental Protection Co., Ltd/China)

* Does Methane Produced through Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation Pose a Vapor Intrusion Risk? A. Verce and M.L. Stallard.Anja Verce (Weiss Associates/USA)

* Evaluation of Increased Reductive Dechlorination Following Multiple ISCO Injections in Groundwater. K.N. Murdock, A.A. Pierce, and A.M. Northup.Kevin Murdock (CH2M HILL/USA)

EVO Injection in Groundwater: How Far Does It Go? Naval Air Station North Island. V.S. Hosangadi, E. Esmaili, and M. Pound.Vitthal S. Hosangadi (NOREAS, Inc./USA)

* EVO/Bioaugmentation for Treatment of Trichloroethene by Biobarrier and Source Injection Approach. C.A. Fogas, M. Kozar, B. Bakrania, and E. Schleicher.Christine Ann Fogas (OBG/USA)

* Full-Scale Enhanced Bioremediation of Tetrachloroethene within Two Source Areas. G.A. Ulrich and E.S. Mysona.Glenn A. Ulrich (Parsons Corp./USA)

* The Importance of pH Adjustment for Anaerobic Bioremediation of Chlorinated Ethenes. J. Byrd and E. Hollifield.Jennifer Byrd (ERM/USA)

* In Situ Hydrogen Generation and pH Adjustment for the Remediation of Chlorinated VOCs in Low-pH Aquifers. D.R. Lippincott, P.G. Koster van Groos, S. Streger, and N.E. Ruiz.David R. Lippincott (CB&I Federal Services, LLC/USA)

Large-Scale Biobarrier Performance and Bioaugmentation for TCE Treatment. W.S. Clayton and F.J. Krembs.Wilson S. Clayton (Trihydro Corporation/USA)

Large-Scale Implementation with Adaptive Operation: An In Situ Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination Success Story. J. McDonough, D. Nelson, M. Cobb, W. Popham, and M. Hanish.Jeff McDonough (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

A Multisite Performance Review of Slow-Release Electron Donor and Bioaugmentation Co-Application Strategy. S.P. Sittler, B. Poling, and D. Davis.Steven Sittler (KERAMIDA, Inc/USA)

* Observing Geochemical Changes during Performance Monitoring. N.F. Blomgren, P.K. Juriasingani, and J.R. Woertz.Nathan Blomgren (Chevron Environmental Management Company/USA)

* On-Site Treatability Evaluation: Passive In Situ Biostimulation of Chlorinated-Benzene Groundwater Contaminants Using Green Technology. K.C. Armstrong.Kent C. Armstrong (BioStryke Remediation Products, LLC/USA)

* Post-Remediation Performance Evaluation: Lessons Learned from Two EVO Projects. R.C. Borden, J. Keener, B. Yuncu, and M.A. Singletary.Robert C. Borden (Solutions-IES, Inc./USA)

Potential Role of Methanotrophs in Chlorinated Solvent Biodegradation in Low-pH Aquifers. P.B. Hatzinger, R. Towne, S.H. Streger, and K-H Chu.Paul B. Hatzinger (CB&I Federal Services, LLC/USA)

* Practical Challenges in Enhanced Bioremediation: Producing High-Quality Injection Water and Dealing with Low Groundwater pH. S. Dworatzek, J. Roberts, P. Dennis and P. Dollar.Sandra Dworatzek (SiREM/Canada)

* The Production and Management of Methane in Soil Gas during Solvent Remediation at Dry Cleaner Sites. K.M. Gaskill and M. Hamilton.Keith M. Gaskill (EnviroForensics, Inc./USA)


25

Reductive Dechlorination of Vinyl Chloride to Ethene in the Absence of Dehalococcoides mccartyi. Y. Yang, S.A. Higgins, J. Yan, B. Simsir, F.E. Loeffler, K. Chourey, R. Hettich, B. Baldwin, and D.M. Ogles.Yi Yang (University of Tennessee, Knoxville/USA)

* Remediation of Free-Product 1,1,1 TCA and PCE in Low-Buffering-Capacity Sands. M. Van Den Eeckhaut, K. Van Geert, and W. Gevaerts.Miet Van Den Eeckhaut (ARCADIS/Belgium)

* Source Zone Treatment of Trichloroethene via Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination: A Twelve-Year Review. M.T. Jordan.Michael Jordan (Terracon Consultants, Inc./USA)

Successful EISB Treatment of Trichloroethene and Perchlorate in a Low-pH and Low-Permeability Environment. L. MacKinnon, E. Cox, C. Repta, B. Amos, T. Hagemeyer, J. Roberts, and D. Woodward.Leah K. MacKinnon (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./Canada)

* Turning Knobs to Accelerate Bioremediation to Support Property Transfer. P.M. Dombrowski, J. Fairclough, and K. Ali.Paul M. Dombrowski (AECOM/USA)

A7. Lessons Learned with In Situ TechnologiesPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: James A. Peeples (T&M Associates, Inc.) Stephen Rosansky (Battelle)

* Adaptive Remediation of a Volatile and Semivolatile Organic Compound Plume in the Piedmont of South Carolina. E.B. Hollifield, M.C. Leahy, M. Miller, and D. Wanty.Edward B. Hollifield (ERM/USA)

Air Sparging Technology Status Review: Advanced Design and Implementation Tools. O. Uppal, S. Abrams, and M. Ambrusch.Omer Uppal (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

Can We REALLY Achieve Site Cleanup Levels via ISCO? Full-Scale Test Results Indicate Low Porosity and Enclosed Systems May Prevent the Achievement of Cleanup Levels Using Standard Application Techniques. B.R. Hoye, D.Y. Marquez, and J.P. Cleary.Brian R. Hoye (Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc./USA)

* Evaluation of In Situ Soil Stabilization for Remediation of a Chlorinated DNAPL. K.H. Peckhaus and J. Bunton.Karl H. Peckhaus (Remedial Construction Services, L.P. [RECON]/USA)

* Horizontal Well Drilling Mud and Development. J.M. Doesburg, L. Anderson, and M.D. Lubrecht.James Doesburg (Directed Technologies Drilling, Inc./USA)

* In Situ Microcosms to Field-Scale Implementaton of In Situ Bioremediation of Chlorinated Ethenes in Groundwater. L. LaPat-Polasko and C. Aziz.Laurie LaPat-Polasko (ENVIRON International Corp./USA)

In Situ Remediation Performance and Cost: What Happened at 235 Sites? T.M. McGuire, D.T. Adamson, P.R. Kulkarni, and C.J. Newell.Travis M. McGuire (GSI Environmental, Inc./USA)

Lessons Learned from Common Mistakes Applying In Situ Remediation Technologies in the Field. K. Brasaemle and N. Goers.Karla Brasaemle (TechLaw, Inc./USA)

Lessons Learned from Successful Modification of a Poorly Performing Biorecirculation Pilot. M.R. Lamar, R. Subramanian, J.T. Bamer, D.D. Nguyen, M.J. Fischer, and K.S. Sorenson.Michael Lamar (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

* Screen Design for Horizontal Injection Wells. B.D. Younkin and D. Ombalski.Brian Younkin (Directed Technologies Drilling, Inc./USA)

The Search for Viable In Situ Remedies for Mixed CFC and Chlorinated Solvent Plumes: Lab- and Field-Study Results. D.R. Griffiths, M.B. Phelps, D. Hou, K.P. Garon, and E.E. Mack.Daniel R. Griffiths (Parsons Corp./USA)

* Stuff Happens: Mistakes by Me and Others. L. Lehmicke and J. DeLaet.Leo G. Lehmicke (CO2 and Water/USA)

* Successfully Integrating Surfactants into ChemOx Technologies. D. Socci, J. Holcomb, and G. Dahal.Dan Socci (EthicalChem/USA)

Sustained Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents in Mulch Biowalls: A 10-Year Anniversary Analysis. K.L. Walker, T.M. McGuire, D.T. Adamson, and C.J. Newell.Kenneth Walker (GSI Environmental Inc./USA)

Twenty Years of Fractured Rock Remediation: Lessons Learned from Two Dozen Sites. A. Horneman, M. Schnobrich, and E. Killenbeck.Allan Horneman (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* The Ultimate Synergy That Never Happened. E. Gustafson.Erik Gustafson (The Louis Berger Group, Inc./USA)

* Vapor and Liquid Treatment during In Situ Thermal Remediation at the Well 12A Superfund Site. M.W. Roberts, L.E. Ehrhard, and L. Stauch.Mark Roberts (KEMRON Environmental Services/USA)


26

B1. Management of Complex DNAPL SitesPlatforms Monday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Rula Anselmo Deeb (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.) Linda Fiedler (U.S. EPA)

The 30-Year Performance of a Groundwater Cleanup Program. D.G. Jackson, B.B. Looney, J.A. Ross, J.E. Cardoso-Neto, C.L. Bergren, and K.M. Adams.Dennis G. Jackson (Savannah River National Laboratory/USA)

* After Transition: A Review of Long-Term Management Approaches for Complex Sites. C.J. Newell and S.D. Richardson.Charles J. Newell (GSI Environmental, Inc./USA)

Case Studies for Remediation Management of Complex Sites. J. Price and C. Spreng.John Price (State of Washington Department of Ecology/USA)

Complex DNAPL Site Exit Strategy Development: Maximizing Remedial Success at a Canadian Rail Yard. J. Coughlin, L. Thomas, F. Payne, P. Kornelsen, and J. LaChance.Jeremy Coughlin (Canadian Pacific/USA)

* Developing a Reuse Strategy for Ponded Acidic Tar Wastes. C. Calkins, M. Markert, P. Schultz, B. Hickel, and J. McAuliffe.Paul Schultz (OBG/USA)

* DNAPL Baildown Testing and Analysis. T. Nelson and J. Smith.

Trika Nelson (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* ERI Insights into DNAPL Source Zone Structure. T. Halihan, S. McDonald, and M. Stonecipher.Todd Halihan (Oklahoma State University/USA)

* Evaluating Residential Well Seasonal Fluctuations in Chlorinated Solvent Concentrations within Fractured Bedrock Aquifers. R. Weiss, K. Haskins, C. Martin, B. Bachman, V. Henzi, D. Sacks, and R. Lobos.Rebecca A. Weiss (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/USA)

* Horizontal Electrical Resistance Heating for DNAPL Remediation beneath a Manufacturing Facility. G.N. Iosue and M. Sequino.Glenn Nicholas Iosue (ioSue, LLC/USA)

Management of a Complex DNAPL Site Requiring Thermal Treatment under an Active Building. J. Seeman and K. Batsel.Jake Seeman (TRS Group, Inc./USA)

Managing Change to Achieve Groundwater Restoration Objectives: The Cleburn Street Well Superfund Site. D. Wennerstrom and K. Garufi.Kate Garufi (EPA/USA)

* Practicability of Dissolved-Phase Plume Cleanup Following DNAPL Source Zone Remediation: An Australian Perspective. J. Duran, S. Hagerty, and K. Potter.Joe Duran (AECOM/Australia)

* Remediation of DNAPL Source Under an Active Building in New York City. M. Nanista, C. Blundy, and K. Dixon.Michelle Nanista (TRS Group, Inc./USA)

* The Role of Contaminated Groundwater Seepage in the Selection and Implementation of Upland and Sediment Remedies at a Former MGP Site. R. Barth, J. Edwards, J. Renda, E. Schwarz, B. Johnson, and R. Wyatt.Benjamin Johnson (Anchor QEA, LLC/USA)

* A Step-by-Step Approach for Soil and Groundwater Remediation: Keeping Focused on Risk Management. V.V. Sewaybricker, R.J. Spina, A.L. de Souza, and M. Nunes de Paula.Victor Vanin Sewaybricker (Geoklock Consultoria e Engenharia Ambiental Ltda./Brazil)

SVE Remediation at a Complex, Buried-Drum Disposal Site with DNAPL. D.T. Heidlauf and B.S. Kennington.David Heidlauf (Ramboll Environ/USA)

Technical Challenges Associated with the Department of Defense’s Complex Sites. C.A. Lebron, A. Leeson, and H.F. Stroo.Carmen Lebron (Consulting Engineer/USA)

B2. Large, Dilute Plume ManagementPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Jim Fenstermacher (AECOM) Fred Payne (ARCADIS U.S., Inc.)

Adaptive Optimization for Improved Management/Remediation of a Large-Scale Carbon Tetrachloride Plume. M.W. Killingstad, D. Farber, L. Rodriguez, and S.T. Potter.Marc Killingstad (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* Biogeophysical Analysis of Hexavalent Chromium Reduction. K.C. Johnson, G. Dai, J. Thomle, B.D. Lee, J.W. Morad, E.A. Cordova, T.C. Johnson, and M.H. Lee.Kayla Johnson (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory/USA)

Coupling ISCO and ISCR for DNAPL Source and Plume Remediation in a Saprolite and Fractured Bedrock Aquifer. D. Bryant, G. Maalouf, and S. Golaski.Dan Bryant (Geo-Cleanse International, Inc./USA)

* Effectiveness of Implementing Various Technologies to Treat MTBE at a Site with Complex Lithological Conditions. B. Patel, P. Chang, and D. Payne.Pamela Chang (Battelle/USA)


27

* Evaluation, Remediation and Long-Term Management of a Large, Commingled, Dilute, VOC Plume in Western Ohio. C.A. Cox.Craig A. Cox (Cox-Colvin & Associates, Inc./USA)

* Exit Strategy Development Using a Decision Matrix Approach at a Large CVOC Bioremediation and Thermal Remediation Project. M.A. Panciera, T. Kalinowski, L.A. Hellerich, and R. Henderson.Matthew Panciera (AECOM/USA)

* Geochemical Fingerprinting for Source Determination of Impacted Groundwater Downgradient of a Former Ammonium Perchlorate Production Facility. K. Souder, C. Stubbs, C. Ritchie, and J.M. Pekala.Kimberly Souder (Ramboll Environ/USA)

* Implementation of EZVI as a Sequential Remediation Technology. G. Su, M. Tischuk, R. Copeland, and J. West.Grace Su (TEA, Inc./USA)

Multiple Characterization Technologies to Refine a Conceptual Site Model at a Complex CVOC-Impacted Fractured Bedrock Site in the Northeastern U.S. A. Taddeo, S. Olson, D. Folan, and R. Garfield.Art Taddeo (AECOM/USA)

A New Framework for Accelerated Site Closure: Dynamic Groundwater Recirculation. S.T. Potter, M.R. Klemmer, W. Parry, J. Roller, and F. Payne.Scott T. Potter (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

Optimization and Performance of a Combined Remedy for Source Treatment and Large Dilute Plume Management. K. Lynch, T. Macbeth, D. Giaudrone, R. Chichakli, C. Cora, and R. Fuentes.Kira Lynch (U.S. EPA/USA)

Phased/Tiered Remediation of a Large TCE Plume Incorporating HRSC, Source Excavation, Recirculation, ISB, and ISCR Injections. A. Gupta and M. MacEwan.Ankit Gupta (AECOM/USA)

TBA Persistence and Removal at a Large Oxygenate Plume: Conceptual Models and Practical Experience. R. Ahlers, S. Beadle, and S. Martin.Rick Ahlers (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* Walking a Tightrope: Making a Dilute PCE Plume Disappear with EISB. L. Lehmicke and E. Frauen.Leo G. Lehmicke (CO2 and Water/USA)

B3. Timeline of ITRC Guidance on Chlorinated SolventsPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Naji Akladiss (Maine Department of Environmental Protection)Michael Smith (VT DEC)

Developing and Implementing an Integrated Site Strategy for DNAPL Sites. N. Akladiss and R. Wymore.Naji Akladiss (Maine Department of Environmental Protection/USA)

* Essential Components for Monitored Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvent Plumes. N. Akladiss and H. Rectanus.Heather Campbell Veith Rectanus (Battelle/USA)

In Situ Bioremediation of Chlorinated Ethenes: DNAPL Source Zones. N. Akladiss and T. Macbeth.Tamzen Macbeth (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

Integrated DNAPL Site Characterization and Tools Selection. R.A. Wymore, N.N. Akladiss, and M.B. Smith.Ryan A. Wymore (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

* ITRC’s Integrated DNAPL Site Characterization Strategy and Tools Selection Framework. M. Smith and N. Akladiss.Michael Smith (VT DEC/USA)

Measurement and Use of Mass Discharge and Mass Flux to Improve Decisions at Contaminated Sites. N. Akladiss, T. Macbeth, and C. Newell.Charles J. Newell (GSI Environmental, Inc./USA)

B4. Risk Assessment—Practices, Applications, and BenefitsPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Antony Rodolakis (Amec Foster Wheeler) Tamie Weaver (ERM)

* Acute Toxicity Assessments of Persulfate ISCO to Cyprinus carpio. C.-W. Wang and C. Liang.Chi-Wei Wang (National Chung Hsing University/Taiwan)

* Application and Selection of Water Quality Standards in Risk Assessment in Europe. J.M. Oakeshott and A.G. Wilson.Jane Oakeshott (ERM/United Kingdom)

Application of Probabilistic Risk Assessment to Optimize Remedial Options and Regulatory Compliance: A Case Study. J.M. Oakeshott and K. Schnell.Jane Oakeshott (ERM/United Kingdom)


28

* Assessing Human-Health Risk with TPH Fractions. A. Goldberg Day.Amy E. Goldberg Day (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* Assessment of Ecological Risks from Petroleum Hydrocarbons: Toxicity and Biogenic Background Levels in Sediments. J. Weier, J. Coffey, F. Kelly-Hooper, T. Simpkin, and P. Bosch.Jonathon Weier (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Assessment of the Contamination within an Internationally Protected Nature Habitat. A. Melvej, M. Bondgaard, K.B.Nielsen, K. Rüegg, H.R. Larsen, B.A. Larsen, L. Bennedsen, and O. Kiilerich.Anja Hermansen (Central Denmark Region/Denmark)

* Chemical and Geotechnical Risk Assessment of Contaminated Fibre Banks. S. Josefsson, K. Wiberg, A. Apler, L. Zillén, P. Frogner-Kockum, G. Goransson, M. Kononets, and I. Snowball.Sarah Josefsson (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences/Sweden)

Demonstration of a Field-Sampling Protocol for Assessment of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds to Outdoor Air. A.P. Joslyn, P.S. Finn, R.S. White, and S.L. Battle.Andrew Joslyn (Golder Associates/USA)

* Direct Aquatic-Toxicity Assessment of Polar Petroleum Biodegradation Metabolite Mixtures in Groundwater at a Mature, Near-Estuary Fuel Release Site. A. Chakrabarti, W. Carson, P.T. Zawislanski, D. Zemo, and M. Leacox.Arnab Chakrabarti (Terraphase Engineering/USA)

* Environmental Risk Assessment of Contaminated Soils with Focus on Soil Functions. S. Josefsson, S. Hallin, C. Jones, A. Taylor, M. Viketoft, K. Wiberg, D. Berggren Kleja, A. Enell, M. Engwall, M. Larsson, and Y. Volchko.Sarah Josefsson (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences/Sweden)

* Impact of Chlorinated Compounds in Groundwater on Streams: A Study on over 30 Contaminated Sites in Denmark. S.S. Nielsen, C. Bach, S. Roost, H. Overgaard, A. Melvej, M. Fischer, K. Raun, S. Poniewozik, L. Tombak, and J. Aabling.Sanne Skov Nielsen (Orbicon/Denmark)

Incorporating PAH Bioavailability in Risk Calculations for Petroleum-Impacted Soils and Sediments. J. Pietari, K. O’Reilly, D. Shea, and R. Kamath.Jaana Pietari (Exponent, Inc./USA)

* Measuring Uptake of Metals in Plant Tissue: How Well Do the Measurements Reflect Modeled Predictions? D.Y. Marquez and S.L. Shelton.Diana Y. Marquez (Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc./USA)

A Modeling and Risk Evaluation of a River System in the Vicinity of Bottom Ash Ponds for a Former Coal-Fired Electric Power Plant. K. Ashfaque, M. Kladias, T. Schlekat, and S. Sager.Khandaker Ashfaque (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

Reducing Uncertainties in Risk Assessment by Integrating Groundwater Contaminant Mass Flux Understanding. K.L. Kiefer and T. Weaver.Tamie Weaver (ERM/Australia)

Reducing Uncertainty in Toxicity-Based PCB Allocation. D.P. Kay, J.L. Newsted, P.B. Simon, and P.M. Simon.Denise Kay (Natural Resource Technology, Inc./USA)

* A Survey of Recent Developments in Toxicology and Risk Assessment for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. B. Selcoe and W. DiGuiseppi.Barrie Selcoe (CH2M HILL/USA)

Significance of Remediation of an Extensive Groundwater PCE Plume for Quality of Surface Water and PCE Content in Fish Tissue. J. Machackova, A. Petruzelkova, Z. Wittlingerova, and M. Zimova.Jirina Machackova (Technical University of Liberec/Czech Republic)

B5. Adopting and Applying Risk-Based ApproachesPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Tanwir Chaudhry (Consultant) Bertisabel M. Custer (Amec Foster Wheeler)

* Case Study: Assessment of Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Contamination for Site Closure. N. Hambali, S. Ariffin, A.R. Ramli, M.N. Ismail, and F. Rahim.Nuraini Hambali (PETRONAS/Malaysia)

The Evolution of PCB-Discharge Limits: Re-evaluating Groundwater Remediation System Performance Requirements. R. Schoepke, B. Martinek, A. Riffel, M. Phillips, and M. Olson.Brian C. Martinek (Trihydro Corporation/USA)

* How HHE Risk Assessment Can Effectively Manage Contamination and Avoid Remediation and Liabilities. F. Abo and E. Friebel.Fouad Abo (GHD Pty. Ltd./Australia)

Implementing Successful Risk-Based Cleanups: Drivers and Benchmarking Strategies. M.A. Harclerode, T. Macbeth, and C. Gurr.Melissa Harclerode (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

* Integrating Bench-Scale Treatability Testing and Risk into the Development of Effluent Limits in a Sediment Remedy. T.L. Sorell.Tamara Sorell (Brown and Caldwell/USA)


29

* Risk-Based LNAPL Management at Canadian Forces Base 5 Wing Goose Bay. J. Mooers, M. Rousseau, and K. Watson.Matthew Rousseau (GHD/Canada)

* Risk-Based Management of DNAPL Tar at a Former Manufactured Gas Plant Site. R.K. Sillan and B.W. Koons.Randall Sillan (AECOM/USA)

Setting Precedent as Project Site #1 in North Carolina: A Case Study for Risk-Based Remediation of Groundwater. H.P. Corley.Helen P. Corley (Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc./USA)

Using Synergistic Remediation to Promote the Risk-Based Cleanup of Chlorinated Ethenes at a Historical Train Derailment Site. B.F. Droy, C. Akudo, R. Copeland, and L. Porterfield.Brad Droy (TEA, Inc./USA)

B6. Incremental SamplingPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Roger Brewer (Hawaii Dept. of Health) Deana Crumbling (U.S. EPA)

* A Case Study of an Expedited Incremental Sampling Approach to Optimize Characterization, Hazard Evaluations, and Disposal Volumes at a Construction Site. W.Y. Ng, S. Cocchia, F. Hopkins, and L. Bailey.Sergio Cocchia (CH2M HILL/USA)

Comparing Discrete Sampling and Incremental Sampling Methodology with Petroleum Hydrocarbon-Contaminated Soils in Canada. K. Hyde, L. Moelhman, S.D. Siciliano, T. Obal, and T. Carlson.Kathlyne Hyde (University of Saskatchewan/Canada)

* Comparison of River Sediment Incremental Sampling and Transect Composite Sampling Results at a PCB Superfund Site in Michigan. J.R. Dickson, R. Stenson, C. Winkeljohn, and A. Lonergan.James R. Dickson (CTI and Associates, Inc./USA)

* Coupling ISM and GIS to Streamline Site Characterization at the Open Detonation Grounds: Former Kansas Army Ammunition Plant. J. Galloway and D. Homer.David Homer (Tetra Tech, Inc./USA)

* Effect of Milling on Stable Organics. D.R. Jones and M.L. Bruce.Diane Jones (TestAmerica/USA)

* Increasing Confidence in Site Decision Making: Quantifying Discrete Data Variability and Its Relationship with Incremental Soil Sampling. J. Brodersen.Jason Brodersen (Tetra Tech, Inc./USA)

* Multi-Increment® Sampling Approach to PCB-Release Response Assessment (TSCA versus MIS®). D. Feher, R.A. Chong, and J. Shacat.Domonkos Feher (Environmental Science International/USA)

* Performance Comparison between 5-Point Composite and 30-Point Incremental Soil Samples. D.M. Crumbling, S. Forrest, C. Partridge, and R. Tisdale.Deana Crumbling (U.S. EPA/USA)

* Performance Monitoring for an Incremental Sampling Design in a Remedial Investigation. B. Jordan and D. Anderson.Brian D. Jordan (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/USA)

* Soil Characterization and Verification of Soil Remediation Using Incremental Sampling for Former Wastewater Sludge Impoundments. K.M. Roznay, L.A. Sweet, M. Capodivacca, and M.E. Savale.Ken Roznay (Tetra Tech, Inc./USA)

Test of the Multi-Increment Sampling (MIS) Method on 15 Playgrounds. A. Sivertsen, H. Hansen, and T. Kornbeck.Anne Sivertsen (Capital Region of Denmark/Denmark)

Use of Real-Time Monitoring Equipment to Optimize Incremental Sampling Investigations in Marine Water. M. Heskett, M. Neal, S. Sprengler, and T. Teruya.Marvin Heskett (Element Environmental/USA)

* Various Approaches to Surface and Subsurface Multi-Incremental Soil Sample Collection. K.S. Kennedy.Kevin Kennedy (Kevin S. Kennedy Consulting, LLC/USA)

Why Discrete Soil Samples Lie and Why Incremental Sampling Is Important: A Field Study of Heterogeneity. R. Brewer, J. Peard, J. Nakayama, and M. Heskett.Roger Brewer (Hawaii Dept. of Health/USA)

B7. Performance-Based Environmental ManagementPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Paul Wm. Hare (O’Brien & Gere) Kurt Herman (Gradient Corporation)

* Business Case Analysis: Demonstrating the Value of Data to Accelerate Site Comprehension, Communication, and Closure. J. Gillespie, D. Williams, K. Brown, M. Duley, and J. Wang.Kandi Brown (NewFields Government Services, LLC/USA)

* Comparison of In Situ Substrate Injection Methods at a Large Military Installation. G.A.Colgan.Gary Colgan (CH2M HILL/USA)


30

End-Stage Remediation of a Large TCE Plume Using a Combination of ERD Technologies. A.K. Kutty, J.A. England, K.J. Ruder, and T. Lackman.Arvind Kutty (Gilbane Company/USA)

* Explaining the Price-Value Connection for Environmental Cleanup Projects. J. Rosengard.John Rosengard (Environmental Risk Communications, Inc./USA)

* Meeting the Critical Deadline While Implementing a Trio of Multimillion Dollar Remedies: Collaboration Required. J. Bonsteel, M. Klemmer, S. Murphy, and W. Parry.Jeffrey Bonsteel (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

A Performance Assessment Approach for Pump-and-Treat Systems. M.J. Truex, C.D. Johnson, M.H. Lee, and D.J. Becker.Michael J. Truex (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory/USA)

A Performance-Based Design/Build Approach for In Situ Thermal Remediation. J.M. Cavotta, D.P. Gorman, and R. Poulin.James M. Cavotta (OBG/USA)

The Use of Decision-Tree Models, Value Engineering, and Other Tools to Drive Effective Financial and Strategic Decision Making. A.M. Stegman.Allen M. Stegman (BNSF Railway/USA)

B8. Environmental Restoration Best Management Practices (BMPs)Platforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Deepti Krishnan Nair (Battelle) Joe Seracuse (Brown and Caldwell)

* Accelerated In Situ Remediation for Site Closure of a 1,4-Dioxane, Chlorinated Solvent, and Petroleum Mixed Plume in a Clay Aquifer. R.S. George, J.S. Poynor, and Y.N. Garson.R. Steven George (Tersus Properties, LLC/USA)

Achieving Drinking Water Standards in a Back-Diffusion World. M. Schnobrich, S. Suthersan, and S. Potter.Matthew Schnobrich (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* A Case Study of Best Management Practices Developed and Negotiated at the Former Stapleton International Airport, Denver Colorado. D. McCloy, J. Seracuse, D. Milner, and G. Holt.Dan McCloy (Brown and Cadwell/USA)

* Combined Active and Passive Treatment of a Large, Dilute PCE Plume. R. Schoepke, F.J. Krembs, and G.E. Mathes.Friedrich J. Krembs (Trihydro Corporation/USA)

Comprehensive and Balanced Remedial Approach Leads to Successful Remediation and Redevelopment of a Former Chemical Manufacturing Site. S.A. Kessel.Stephen A. Kessel (Brown and Caldwell/USA)

* Deep Vadose Zone Sources, Groundwater Resource Management, and Climate Variability Complicate Groundwater Cleanup-Time Estimation. M.-Y. Chu.Min-Ying Jacob Chu (Haley & Aldrich, Inc./USA)

Electrokinetically Enhanced Delivery of Permanganate for In Situ Chemical Oxidation (EK-ISCO) of Fine-Grain, Silty Soil. D.B. Gent, J. Wang, and C. Gale.David B. Gent (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/USA)

* Embedding Sustainable Safety within Steam-Enhanced Remediation Projects at Operational Facilities. L. Chesher, J. Baldock, K. Johnson, L. Pepperell, and J. Dablow.Lucy Chesher (ERM/United Kingdom)

* Mineralogical Controls on Microbial Metabolism: How Mg Can Poison Remediation in Cold Region, Dolomitic Soils. S.D. Siciliano, T. Chen, C. Phillips, J. Hamilton, D. Bulmer, J.D. Peak, J. Grosskleg, K. Bradshaw, and T. Carlson.Steven Siciliano (University of Saskatchewan/Canada)

* Rehabilitation of a Degraded Area that is Currently in Use Changes with the Construction of a Commercial Shed. M. Sillos, S.C. Nascimento, A. Passarelli, F. Lima do Santos, and E. Araujo.Silvia C. Nascimento (Edutech Ambiental/Brazil)

Remediation Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics: Results of an Industry Survey. W.S. Clayton.Wilson S. Clayton (Trihydro Corporation/USA)

* Utilization of Waste Materials, Nonrefined Materials, and Renewable Energy in In Situ Remediation. P. Favara and J. Gamlin.Paul Favara (CH2M HILL/USA)

B9. Optimization of Remedial Projects and ProgramsPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Arun R. Gavaskar (U.S. Navy) Jeffrey L. Pintenich (Brown and Caldwell)

* Achieving Operational Excellence in Remediation Management. M. Dever and R. Well.Roger Well (ENFOS, Inc./USA)

* Air Sparging Remediation during the California Drought. A. Lee, J.F. Ludlow, C. Glenn, O. Uppal, V. Yarina, and R.W. List.Annie Lee (Langan Treadwell Rollo/USA)


31

Assessing Remediation Effectiveness of a 20-Year Remediation System: Circuit Boards to Shopping Mall. S. Knox, D. Barsotti, B. Langan, and A. Mikszewski.Sheri Knox (Amec Foster Wheeler, Inc./USA)

* Big Data Analysis and Visualization to Evaluate Best Remedial Technology to Meet Remedial Objectives. S. Baez-Cazull, S. James, E. McCabe, J. Moore, D. Negron, M. Bruckner, D. Gimon, P. Hayes, and R.H. Anderson.Susan Baez-Cazull (Noblis, Inc./USA)

* Cleanup of a 1.7-Acre Gasoline LNAPL Zone to California Drinking Water Standards in Three Years. R. Ahlers, M. Garbiero, B. Stanphill, and S. Martin.Rick Ahlers (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

Department of the Navy Portfolio Optimization of Sites under the Installation Restoration Program: Common Themes Findings. G.H. Coghlan, K. Brown, A.R. Gavaskar, and M.A. Singletary.Gunarti Coghlan (U.S. Navy/USA)

* Design-Build Delivery Strategy Expedites Project Delivery to Intercept a Fast-Moving CVOC Groundwater Plume. K.D. Dyson, S. MacMillin, and R. Darwin.Kevin D. Dyson (Brown and Caldwell/USA)

Development of an Optimization Program for the Formerly Used Defense Sites Program. D.J. Becker.David J. Becker (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/USA)

* Groundwater Plume Analytics for Assessing Remediation Effectiveness. J.A. Ricker.Joseph Ricker (Earthcon Consultants, Inc./USA)

* How Can Lean Thinking Support Successful Management of Complex and/or Legacy Sites? B.J. Zinni, S.L. Boyle, S.E. MacIntyre, and J.M. Baker.Bethany Zinni (Haley & Aldrich, Inc./USA)

* How Long? An Overview of Remediation Timeframe Methods and Issues. C. Newell and S. Farhat.Charles J. Newell (GSI Environmental, Inc./USA)

Innovative Approach for Long-Term Monitoring at Complex Sites. C.A. Eddy-Dilek, M.E. Denham, M.R. Millings, and M.B. Amidon.Carol A. Eddy-Dilek (Savannah River National Laboratory/USA)

Lifecycle of the CDOT Materials-Testing Laboratory Remediation Project: A Model for Adaptive Remedial Design and Optimization. C.E. Divine, K.L. Heinze, J.L. Manley, S. Handy, S.D. Andrews, and T. Santangelo-Dreiling.Craig E. Divine (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* A Management Strategy for PG&E’s Hinkley Chromium-6 Groundwater Built around Data and Information Visualization. I. Webster, R. Sanchez, and H. Kavak.Ian Webster (Project Navigator, Ltd./USA)

* Measuring the Performance of Environmental Remediation Management. M.R. Ferries.Marc Ferries (Project Navigator, Ltd./USA)

Navigating Complex Sites with Voluntary Cleanup Programs: Case Study Evaluations in Three States. B.S. Langan and J.A. Bennett.Bonani Langan (Amec Foster Wheeler, Inc./USA)

Optimization of a Groundwater Monitoring Program Using Lean Six-Sigma Approaches. J. Piper, S. Martz, S. Duffy, B. Collom, I. Wood, and C. Hong.Jay Piper (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Optimization of a Heat-Enhanced Pump-and-Treat System for Recovery of Navy Special Fuel Oil LNAPL at the Yorktown Defense Fuel Supply Point. S.H. Rosansky, S.B. Moore, J. Wang, N. Durant, and M. Stepien.Stephen Rosansky (Battelle/USA)

* Optimization of Pump-and-Treat under Cost and Sustainability Consideration. B. Eccarius and D. Wanty.Bernd Eccarius (ERM/Germany)

* Optimization Strategies for Injecting Large Volumes of Amendments to Remediate a Large, Dilute TCE Plume. A.K. Kutty, J.A. England, K.J. Ruder, and T. Lackman.Arvind Kutty (Gilbane Company/USA)

* Optimizing Elevated pH Attenuation by Combining Gypsum with Siderite. M. Vanderkooy, T. Krug, M. Gerdenich, and J. Roberts.Matt Vanderkooy (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./Canada)

* Optimizing Groundwater and Vapor Monitoring Well Networks: Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico. P.M. Hunter.Philip M. Hunter (U.S. Air Force/USA)

* Optimizing Remediation Timeframes at Sites with Significant Groundwater Concentration Fluctuations. M.L. Alexander and J.Y. Jin.Matthew Alexander (Leidos/USA)

* Seamless 3-Dimensional Characterization, Remedial Design, and Precision Excavation of PCB-Impacted Soil. E.B. Rogoff, P. Batten, and D. Casey.Eric B. Rogoff (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* Site-Specific Sampling Frequency for GAC Filter Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents in Private Drinking Water Wells. K. Haskins, R. Weiss, C. Martin, B. Bachman, C. Martin, V. Henzi, D. Sacks, and R. Lobos.Karah Haskins (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/USA)


32

C1. Measurement and Monitoring Technologies and ToolsPlatforms Monday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Julie Konzuk (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.) James Longstaffe (University of Guelph)

* Application of a Novel Approach for Locating a Missing Tracer and Assessing Groundwater Velocity. M.B. Heintz, J. McDonough, J. Brussel, C. Geraci, M. Hysell, D. Nelson, and J.F. Morgan.Monica Heintz (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

Assessing Microbial Community Function at Remediation Sites with Next-Generation Sequencing. P. Dennis, K. Krivushin, P. Dollar, and E. Edwards.Phil Dennis (SiREM/Canada)

* Case Study: Ricker Method® Application of Relative Spatial Plume Difference Analysis Tool at a Wood-Treating Site. E.W. Lee and J.A. Ricker.Emily Lee (EarthCon Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Combined-Systems Approach for Determining Environmentally-Released Chlorinated Ethene Transformation Pathways. J.W. Morad, B.D. Lee, and M.H. Lee.Joseph Morad (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory/USA)

* Cryogenic Core Collection and High-Throughput Core Analysis: Recent Advancements. M.R. Olson, T.C. Sale, S. Kiaalhosseini, M. Irianni-Renno, and R. Johnson.Mitchell Olson (Trihydro Corporation/USA)

Development of Nanofiber Materials as Passive Sampling Devices for Determination of Freely Dissolved Sediment Porewater of Hydrophilic and Hydrophobic Organic Contaminants. A. Martinez, J. Qian, B.J. Jennings, and D.M. Cwiertny.Andres Martinez (The University of Iowa/USA)

* DNAPL Mobility Testing and Its Importance to Remedial Decision-Making. T.R. Andrews and T. Lynne.Trevre Andrews (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Estimating DNAPL Bulk Retention Capacity. B.H. Kueper, M.J. Gefell, and B.R. Thompson.Bernie H. Kueper (Queen’s University/Canada)

* Estimation of Biodegradation from Various Field Measurements and Application for Remedial Systems Optimization. M. Morales and J. Leu.Michelle Morales (Parsons Corp./USA)

Field Verification of the DyeLIF System for Delineating Chlorinated Solvent DNAPL in the Subsurface. A. Fure, M.D. Einarson, R. St. Germain, S. Chapman, and B. Parker.Adrian Fure (Haley & Aldrich, Inc./USA)

* Groundwater Characterization for Deep Oil, Gas, and Mine Developments. J. Sankey.John Sankey (True Blue Technologies, Inc./USA)

High-Throughput Proteomics and qPCR Pipelines Reductive Dechlorination Biomarkers in Groundwater. K. Chourey, R.L. Hettich, M.I. Villalobos-Solis, B. Simsir, J. Yan, D. Kaya, F. Loeffler, B. Baldwin, and D.M. Ogles.Karuna Chourey (Oak Ridge National Laboratory/USA)

Next-Generation Sequencing to Assess Bioremediation Processes at a Large Chlorinated-Solvent DNAPL Site. J.G.D. Peale, E. Edwards, K. Krivushin, P. Dollar, and P. Dennis.James Peale (Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc./USA)

NMR: A New Tool in Our Toolbox for Environmental Characterization. J. Longstaffe, J. Konzuk, E. Mack, A. Beeler, and M. McMaster.Julie Konzuk (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./Canada)

* Soil Conductivity, Gas Flux, and Carbon Isotope Analysis: The Next Step in Locating Hydrocarbon Subsurface Plumes? L. Moehlman, K. Hyde, R. Nhan, S.D. Siciliano, K. Bradshaw, M. Sather, and T. Carlson.Lisa Moehlman (University of Saskatchewan/Canada)

* Trials and Tribulations of Being a Mobile Laboratory: Regulations, Methodologies, and Accreditations. K. Watson and M. Rossi.Kim Watson (Stone Environmental, Inc./USA)

Understanding the Environmental Behavior of Organofluorine Compounds Using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. J. Longstaffe and A. Simpson.James Longstaffe (University of Guelph/Canada)

C2. Groundwater Modeling AdvancementsPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Jeffrey Weaver (Brown and Caldwell) Mark Widdowson (Virginia Tech)

Continuous-Time Random Walk (CTRW) Model as an Alternative to Flawed Advection-Dispersion Equation for Estimating Cleanup Timeframe. D.K. Burnell, J. Xu, and Y.J. Yang.Daniel Burnell (Tetra Tech, Inc./USA)

* Development of a Practical Approach for Modeling Matrix Diffusion Effects in Groundwater Transport Models. R.W. Falta, C.J. Newell, and S.K. Farhat.Ronald W. Falta (Clemson University/USA)

* Expanding Our Understanding of Matrix Diffusion: Combining High-Resolution Site Characterization and Predictive Modeling. D. Adamson, C. Newell, S. Farhat, H. Steffensen, C. Riis, A. Christensen, M. Terkelsen, P. Johansen, N. Overheu, and C. Frydenlund.David Adamson (GSI Environmental, Inc./USA)


33

Factors Affecting Time of Remediation for a Chlorinated Ethene-Impacted Public Supply Well. F.H. Chapelle and M.A. Widdowson.Mark Widdowson (Virginia Tech/USA)

Flow and Transport Modeling Tools for Delineating 3-D Capture Zone and Optimizing Source Reduction in a Complex Hydrogeologic Setting. P.P. Brussock, H. Martin, D. Sherman, D.K. Burnell, and J. Xu.Peter Brussock (The ELM Group, Inc./USA)

Geochemical Simulation of Enhanced Reductive Bioremediation: Secondary Water Quality Impacts. J.M. Tillotson, R.C. Borden, and G.-H.C. Ng.Jason Tillotson (North Carolina State University/USA)

* A Mathematical Model Development for Use in Remediation of Sediments Contaminated with PCBs. F. Karakas and I. Imamoglu.Filiz Karakas (Middle East Technical University/Turkey)

* Numerical Groundwater Modeling to Enhance the Design of In Situ Remedies. J.W. Schuetz and D.R. Griffiths.James Schuetz (Parsons Corp./USA)

* Prediction of In Situ Chlorinated Ethene Detoxification Potential Using a Data-Mining Approach. J. Lee, J. Im, U. Kim, and F.E. Loeffler.Frank Loeffler (University of Tennessee, Knoxville/USA)

Should We Include Reactive Transport or Matrix Diffusion in our Weathered Bedrock Model? Why Not Both? N. Brown, J. LaNier, and M. Basial.Nate Brown (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Understanding Matrix Diffusion Effects of Emerging Contaminants. D. Adamson, C. Newell, S. Farhat, and P. Deblanc.David Adamson (GSI Environmental, Inc./USA)

* Use of Bioenhancement Factor Models as a Screening Tool for Evaluating Bioenhanced Dissolution in DNAPL Source Zones. T.J. Phelan, J.A. Christ, L.M. Abriola, K.M. Smits, and J.L. Gibson.Thomas J. Phelan (U.S. Air Force Academy/USA)

Using In Situ Remediation (ISR-MT3DMS) to Model Back-Diffusion Timeframe for Thin Silts and Clays. G.R. Carey.Grant R. Carey (Porewater Solutions/Canada)


C3. Advances in Technology TransferPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Wendy E. Condit (Battelle) Carmen Lebron (Consulting Engineer)

* Catalyzing Rapid Information Transfer among Key Stakeholders on Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) at Contaminated Military Sites: An ESTCP Tech Transfer Project. J.A. Field, R.A. Deeb, and C.P. Higgins.Jennifer A. Field (Oregon State University/USA)

* Delivering Improved Understanding of Natural Attenuation Processes Using a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC). P.J. Alvarez, C.J. Newell, and D.T. Adamson.Pedro J.J. Alvarez (Rice University/USA)

* Designing, Launching, and Facilitating a Webinar Program to Broaden and Strengthen SERDP and ESTCP Technology Transfer Efforts. R.A. Deeb, J. Nyman, D. Rider, and A. Leeson.Rula Anselmo Deeb (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

Environmental Restoration Wiki: Tech Transfer in the 21st Century. B. Yuncu, R.C. Borden, C.J. Newell, and R.A. Deeb.Bilgen Yuncu (EOS Remediation, LLC/USA)

EPA Superfund Program’s Tech Transfer. E. Gilbert.Edward Gilbert (U.S. EPA/USA)

Expanding the Impact of SERDP/ESTCP Projects with On-Demand, End User-Focused, Internet Microlectures. C. Newell, D. Adamson, T. McGuire, and H. Rectanus.Charles J. Newell (GSI Environmental, Inc./USA)

Facilitating Tech Transfer Activities for Geophysical Technologies Applied at Chlorinated Solvent Contaminated Sites. L.D. Slater, F.D. Day-Lewis, D.D. Werkema, and J. Robinson.Lee Slater (Rutgers University—Newark/USA)

* Interactive Training System for Reductions in Cost and Complexity of Remediation and Long-term Management of Contaminated Sites. D.A. Reynolds, B.H. Kueper, K.M. Mumford, M.C. Kavanaugh, P. Kitanidis, and J. Rosen.David A. Reynolds (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./Canada)

NAVFAC’s Technology Transfer Program: Sharing Technology Insights and Best Management Practices for Environmental Restoration Sites. T. Meyers and W. Condit.Tara Meyers (U.S. Navy/USA)

* Technology Transfer: Advances in Contaminant Fate and Flux in Fractured Bedrock. C.E. Schaefer.Charles Schaefer (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

34

Technology Transfer: SERDP/ESTCP’s Efforts. C.A. Lebron and A. Leeson.Carmen Lebron (Consulting Engineer/USA)

C4. Applications of Mass Flux and Mass DischargePlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Wilson S. Clayton (Trihydro Corporation) Kenneth Goldstein (Louis Berger)

Application of Mass Discharge Calculations at a Complex CVOC-Contaminated Site in Southern California. M. Einarson.Murray D. Einarson (Haley & Aldrich, Inc./USA)

* Comparison of the Bias and Uncertainty from Point- and Pumping-Based Mass Discharge Measurement Methods under Heterogeneous Conditions. K.Y. Cha, A.L. Wood, and M.C. Brooks.Ki Young Cha (National Research Council/USA)

* Comparison Study of Different Methods for Estimation of Contaminant Mass Discharge in Aquifers. M.P. Wamberg, A.G. Christensen, N. Tuxen, I.H. Kerrn-Jespersen, T. Pedersen, H.D. Jonge, J.F. Devlin, M.D. Annable, P.L. Bjerg, and V. Roende.Marianne Plenge Wamberg (NIRAS A/S/Denmark)

* Employing Mass Flux Analysis to Optimize Remediation at Two NPL Sites. J.L. Pintenich.Jeffrey L. Pintenich (Brown and Caldwell/USA)

Estimate Mass Flux to Surface Water in Tidal-Influenced Aquifers by Passive Flux Devices and Effective Hydraulic Gradient Calculation. H. Huang, P.B. Butler, M. Ohr, and R. Sillan.He Huang (AECOM/USA)

An Incremental Evaluation of Groundwater Discharge and COPC Mass Flux at the Newtown Creek Superfund Site. J.J. Frederick, S.D. McDonald, C. Prabhu, and E. Mahoney.Jeffrey Frederick (Louis Berger/USA)

* Measuring Contaminant Mass Flux and Specific Discharge in a Fractured Rock Aquifer Using Passive Flux Meters. J.N. Dougherty, M. Brooks, D. Cutt, K. Mishkin, L. Wood, M. Newman, J. Cho, M. Annable, K. Hatfield, R. Truesdale, T. Macbeth, and B. MacDonald.John N. Dougherty (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

A Novel Approach to Assess and Quantify Mass Flux of Groundwater Discharge into Surface Water. P. Favara, K. Hatfield, M. Annable, and D. Lavoie.Paul Favara (CH2M HILL/USA)

Novel Use of Mass Flux Mapping to Optimize Large-Scale Biobarriers for Treatment of Perchlorate, TCE, Chromium, and High Explosives. F.J. Krembs and W.S. Clayton.Friedrich J. Krembs (Trihydro Corporation/USA)

* Use of Passive Flux Meters for Mass Flux and Mass Discharge Estimations at a Lindane Landfill Fractured-Bedrock Site. D. Alcalde, T. Alonso, and R. Espinosa.David Alcalde (AECOM/Spain)

C5. Monitored Natural Attenuation Performance AssessmentPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Charles J. Newell (GSI Environmental, Inc.) John Wilson (Scissortail Environmental Solutions, LLC)

* Achieving Natural Attenuation as Remedial Strategy for 400-Acre Dissolved-Phase Plume. M.R. Klemmer and E.L. Cohen.Mark R. Klemmer (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* Application of a Microbial Genetic Survey to Assess Chlorinated Ethene Biodegradation Pathways in Support of Monitored Natural Attenuation. M.B. Heintz, E. Cohen, M. Griles, S. Fisher, and R. Hare.Monica Heintz (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* Biodegradation of a TCE and 1,4-Dioxane Plume Using Natural Attenuation Processes. G. Cronk.Gary D. Cronk (JAG Consulting Group, Inc./USA)

BioPIC: A Spreadsheet-Based Decision Tool for Deducing Degradation Pathways and Selecting the Most Efficacious Bioremediation Approach for Chlorinated Ethylenes in the Subsurface. T.H. Wiedemeier, J.T. Wilson, and C. Lebron.Todd Wiedemeier (T.H. Wiedemeier & Associates, Inc./USA)

* A Comparison of Predicted and Observed MNA Remedy Performance: Fruit Avenue Plume Superfund Site. W. LeFevre, B. Canellas, S. McKinley, P. Van Noort, and B. Wied.William LeFevre (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Evaluate Role of Biological and Abiotic Dechlorination in the Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Ethenes, Ethanes, and Methanes to Develop an Integrated Remedy Approach to Address Site Contamination. K. Ramanand, M. Ostrowski, D.W. Podsen, C. Myette, and J. Guarnaccia.Karnam Ramanand (Brown and Caldwell/USA)

* An Integrated Approach for Deducing Degradation Pathways at Sites Contaminated With Chlorinated Ethylenes. T.H. Wiedemeier, J.T. Wilson, and C. Lebron.Todd Wiedemeier (T.H. Wiedemeier & Associates, Inc./USA)


35

* Large-Scale ISCO Leads to Monitored Natural Attenuation: Evaluation of Concentration Trends Five Years after Injections. P.M. Dombrowski, B. Weir, W. Abrahams-Dematte, R. Purdy, and J. Brown.Paul M. Dombrowski (AECOM/USA)

Microbial Database Percentile Rankings and Stable Isotope Probing to Evaluate MNA. D. Ogles, A. Biernacki, K. Clark, B.R. Baldwin, A.P. Brey, W. Harms, and J.T. Wilson.Dora Ogles (Microbial Insights, Inc./USA)

Microbial Sensor for Long-Term Monitoring Optimization. S.R. Burge and R.G.Burge.Scott R. Burge (Burge Environmental, Inc./USA)

* MNA as an Alternative to the Existing Remedial Approach at a Complex, Historic Industrial Site with Multiple COCs. M.A. Panciera, T. Kalinowski, Z. Smith, and P.H. Gratton.Matthew Panciera (AECOM/USA)

Natural and Enhanced Attenuation Toolkit Project: Best Practices and New Methods for Prediction and Monitoring. I. Hers, P. Jourabchi, J. Wilson, M. Lahvis, and G. Patrick.Ian Hers (Golder Associates Ltd./Canada)

* Plume Stability and Mass Flux Evaluation to Transition Remedial Approach from Groundwater Recovery to Natural Biodegradation. D. Gray, E. Poissant, B. Koons, B. Legrand, D. Sola, and M. Ehrman.Doug Gray (AECOM/USA)

Production and Natural Attenuation of Secondary Water Quality Impacts (SWQI) from Enhanced Reductive Bioremediation. R.C. Borden, J. Tillotson, G.-H.C. Ng, B.A. Bekins, D.B. Kent, and G.P. Curtis.Robert C. Borden (Solutions-IES, Inc./USA)

* Three-Dimensional Plume Characterization to Support Traditional Monitored Natural Attenuation Assessments. E. Cohen, T. Fewless, and M. Klemmer.Elizabeth Cohen (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

C6. Lessons Learned from Source Zone RemediationPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Jim Cummings (U.S. EPA) Tamzen Macbeth (CDM Smith, Inc.)

Aggressive Source Zone Bioremediation Reduces Contaminant Mass Discharge by 80% from a Fractured Basalt Aquifer Impacted by Mixtures of Chlorinated Compounds. B. Goodwin, C. Coladonato, Y. Chai, C. Walecka-Hutchison, D. Ogles, A. Biernacki, B.R. Baldwin, J.T. Wilson, and K. Sublette.Dora Ogles (Microbial Insights, Inc./USA)

* DNAPL Source Remediation: Comprehensive Source Characterization and Cost-Effective Remedy Implementation. C.D. Hemingway, D.P. Gorman, J.M. Cavotta, and M. Nanista.Christopher D. Hemingway (Golder Associates, Inc./USA)

* Evaluating Groundwater Containment in High-Transmissivity Strata during In Situ Thermal Treatment of a Chlorinated Solvent DNAPL. D.P. Gorman, C.D. Hemingway, J.M Cavotta, and T. Warner.Daniel P. Gorman (Golder Associates, Inc./USA)

* Factors Influencing Rates and Longevity of Treatment at Thirty-Six Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination Sites. J.M. Tillotson and R.C. Borden.Jason Tillotson (North Carolina State University/USA)

* First Full-Scale Test for Reductive Dechlorination of Residual DNAPLs in a 30-m Heterogeneous Aquifer via Groundwater Circulation Well (GCW). M. Petrangeli Papini, M. Majone, L. Pierro, M. Sagliaschi, S. Sucato, E. Alesi, E. Bartsch, S. Rossetti, and B. Maturro.Marco Petrangeli Papini (University of Rome “La Sapienza”/Italy)

* From Hostile, Complex-Mixture NAPL Source Areas to Tame, Diffuse Plumes: Variability in ERD Performance at NAS North Island. M. Pound, N.D. Durant, S. Smith, A. Wadhawan, J. Roberts, J. Willis, G. Alyanakian, and V. Hosangadi.Neal D. Durant (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

How Effective is Thermal Remediation of DNAPL Source Zones in Reducing Groundwater Concentrations? R.S. Baker, S.G. Nielsen, G. Heron, and N. Ploug.Ralph S. Baker (TerraTherm, Inc./USA)

* Lessons Learned for Performance Assessment during a Guaranteed ERH Remediation under an Active Industrial Facility. L. Stauch, J. Lillie, and T. Colliga.Lynette Stauch (TRS Group, Inc./USA)

Lessons Learned for Thermally Enhanced Remediation Processes. T. Powell.Thomas Powell (TRS Group, Inc./USA)

* Lessons Learned from Source Zone Remediation Using ERH. C. Thomas.Chris Thomas (TRS Group, Inc./USA)

* Long-Term Performance Assessment at a Highly Characterized and Instrumented DNAPL Source Area Following Bioaugmentation. G.M. Lavorgna, C.E. Schaefer, and M.D. Annable.Graig M. Lavorgna (CB&I Federal Services, LLC/USA)

Long-Term Performance of a Multi-Component Treatment Strategy for a DNAPL Source Zone. A. Konzen, H. Kayaci, D. Janda, T. Macbeth, and G. Heron.Tamzen Macbeth (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)


36

Performance of an Optimized Large-Scale Bioremediation Strategy as Part of a Combined Remedy for Source Treatment. N.L. Smith, T.W. Macbeth, D.J. Giaudrone, R.E. Chichakli, K. Kunas, C. Cora, and K. Lynch.Neil Smith (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

* Remediation Case Study: Demonstrating Sequential Dechlorination of PCE in DNAPL Source Zones Using a Weight-of-Evidence Approach. J. Ho, J. Byrne, and J. Clay.Jonathan Ho (AECOM/Australia)

* Successful TCE DNAPL Source Area Remediation through Robust Treatment Design and Monitoring Program. R. Bunker, J.T. Spadaro, F.J. Krembs, and W.S. Clayton.Friedrich J. Krembs (Trihydro Corporation/USA)

Treatment of a Chlorobenzene Plume with Sodium Persulfate Using Two Different Activation Methods to Reach Site Closure. S. Suryanarayanan, P. Srivastav, S. Watson, A. Willmore, and R.E. Mayer.Sowmya Suryanarayanan (CB&I Federal Services, LLC/USA)

* Why Property Lines Are Not Good Source-Zone Treatment Boundaries: The Importance of Good Characterization for Effective and Efficient Thermal Treatment of Source Zones. J. LaChance, C. Kalinowski, C. McLaughlin, and R. Fitzpatrick.John C. LaChance (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

C7. Regulatory ConsiderationsPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: James Baldock (ERM) John A. Connor (GSI Environmental, Inc.)

Evolution in International Policy for Management of Contaminated Land. P.R. Nadebaum.Peter Nadebaum (GHD Pty. Ltd./Australia)

* Gaps in the Environmental Remediation Market of China and Recommendations. Y. Wu and F. Gao.Yong Wu (Jiangsu DDBS Environment Remediation Co., Ltd./USA)

International Remediation Markets: Voluntary Remedy of Chlorinated Hydrocarbon-Impacted Soil and Groundwater in Uttar Pradesh, India. J. Parikh, P. Girinathannair, S. Bose, S. Chakraborty, and D. Chakraborty.Jaydeep Parikh (ERM/India)

* Is There a Right Setup for Foreign Companies Doing Remediation in China? J.U. Bastrup and J. Cheng.John U. Bastrup (GEO/Denmark)

* Remediation Market in China: Context, Trend, and Potential. D. Hou.Deyi Hou (Parsons Corp./USA)

A Retrospective Look at a Large Remediation Project in the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. A. Bittner, M. Swamy, H. Ritter, M. Sharma, P. Tornatore, and M. Ramsdell.Andrew Bittner (Gradient Corporation/USA)

* Risk Management of Agricultural Areas at Italian Contaminated Sites. E. Beccaloni and F. Vanni.Eleonora Beccaloni (Italian National Institute of Health/Italy)

* Soil and Groundwater Remediation Values for PFOA in Italy. M. Carere, E. Beccaloni, F. Scaini, R. Crebelli, L. Lucentini, and L. Musmeci.Mario Carere (National Institute of Health/Italy)

* A Survey of Regulation and Operational Guidance Related to Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Containing Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs). W.H. DiGuiseppi and K.L. Locsey.William DiGuiseppi (CH2M HILL/USA)

Viewpoint on the Contaminated Site Remediation Business and Market in China. S.F. Huang and S. Zhang.Shenfa Huang (Shanghai Academy of Environmental Sciences/China)

C8. Challenges in Implementing Remedial TechnologiesPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Dan Bryant (Geo-Cleanse International, Inc.) Grant Geckeler (GEO)

* Assessing the Performance of Bioremediation in a Site of Complex, Low-Permeability Strata Using Low-Pressure Permeability Double-Packing Injection: A Field Pilot Test. Y.T. Chen, C.J. Ho, and T.H. Dong.Yao-tsung Chen (Apollo Technology Co., LTD./Taiwan)

* Case Study: The Remediation of a Basalt Site with Groundwater Chlorinated Contamination in Taiwan. M.H. Ko, C.C. Yang, P.Y. Lian, C.C. Wang, Y.H. Lin, and C.C. Kao.Chen-Chi Kao (Sinotech Environmental Technology, Ltd./Taiwan)

Challenges and Successes Installing and Operating a European Specification Remediation System at a Remote Site in South Africa. T. Ferreira and J. Drzewiecki.Theo Ferreira (GeoRem/South Africa)

Challenges of Soil Mixing Using Catalyzed Hydrogen Peroxide with Rotating Dual-Axis Blending Technology. F.R. Symmes, V. DelloRusso, E. Hall, P. Kakarla, and M. Temple.Frederick R. Symmes (Weston Solutions, Inc./USA)


37

* Contaminated Site Investigation and Remediation in India: A Case Study. I.M. Nambi.Indumathi M. Nambi (Indian Institute of Technology Madras/India)

* Lessons from the Management of Multiple Extensive Dilute Chlorinated Solvent Plumes under a Large Metropolitan Area. S. Kirsanovs.Steven Kirsanovs (Kirsa Environmental/Australia)

* Promoting PCE Dehalorespiration Following In Situ Chemical Oxidation in Saprolite at a Former Manufacturing Facility in Brazil. P. Bennett, M.-Y.J. Chu, M. Einarson, M. Singer, T. Mello, R. Garrafoli, and V. Shea.Peter Bennett (Haley & Aldrich, Inc./USA)

Remediation of an LNAPL-Impacted Fractured Bedrock Aquifer in a Sensitive and Remote Environment in South Africa. S. McKeown, E. Soumillion, and M. Stevenson.Steve McKeown (ERM/South Africa)

Superheated In Situ Thermal Treatment of Dinitro-Toluene: Removal of Comingled SVOCs and Chlorinated VOCs in Clayey Saturated Zones at a Complex Project in China. X. Chen, G. Geckeler, and C. Winell.Xiaosong Chen (GEO/USA)

C9. Case Studies and Lessons LearnedPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Ralph S. Baker (TerraTherm, Inc.) Anita Biernacki (Microbial Insights, Inc.)

Advanced Site Diagnostics: In Situ Remedial Options Utilizing ISCO Pilot Trial, Microcosm Studies, and CSIA. L. Douglass, D.A. Jackson, and R. Harwood.Lee Douglass (Environmental Strategies/Australia)

* Application of Heavy Metal Stabilization Technologies in China: Challenges and the Latest Progress. H. Shan, L. Li, J. Chen, and H. Hao.Huifeng Shan (PeroxyChem, LLC/China)

Bioaugmentation-Based Treatment of 2,6-Dichlorobenzamide (BAM)-Contaminated Groundwater in Drinking Water Production. B. Horemans, Y. Simanjuntak, J. Vandermaesen, J. T’Syen, D. Springael, A. Lapanje, E. Walravens, J. Degryse, J. Boonen, and J. Wittebol.Dirk Springael (KULeuven/Belgium)

* The Danish Way to Registration, Exchange, Reporting, and Publication of Data from Contaminated Sites. J.R. Pedersen.John R. Pedersen (Central Denmark Region/Denmark)

* Enhanced Bioremediation of a Trichloroethene Source Zone in a Fractured Basalt Aquifer in Australia. R.C. Wall, A.M. Cooper, and J.M. Medd.Rachael Wall (Golder Associates Pty. Ltd./Australia)

* ERH for PCE Source Zone Removal at a Former Industrial Site in Brazil. T.L. Gomes and G. Setti.Thiago L. Gomes (TRSDoxor/Brazil)

Field-Scale Implementation of In Situ Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation ofChlorinated Solvents in Groundwater. L.T. LaPat-Polasko, S. Baffert, and L. Conlan.Laurie LaPat-Polasko (ENVIRON International Corp./USA)

* The First Full-Scale In Situ Thermal Remediation Project in China: Experience and Lessons Learned. Z.H. Mei, X.S. Chen, and Y. Wu.Zhihua Mei (Jiangsu DDBS Environment Remediation Co., Ltd./China)

* Fluorescence-Tracing Techniques Successfully Applied for Wellhead Protection and DNAPL Sources Identification. M.H. Otz, I. Otz, T. Gubler, and M. Ciccone.Martin H. Otz (Nano Trace Technologies/Switzerland)

In Situ Redox Manipulation (ISRM) for Treatment of Trichloroethylene and Hexavalent Chromium in Groundwater from a Site Located in Sao Paulo State, Brazil. C. Goncalves, M.P. Menezes, D.H. Teixeira, L.T.M. Cruz, C. Granzotto, and P.F. Silverio.Cristina Gonçalves (CPEA Consultoria, Planejamento e Estudos Ambientais/Brazil)

In-Pile Thermal Treatment of Agent Orange-Contaminated Soil and Sediment at Danang Airport, Vietnam. R.S. Baker, J.P. Galligan, R. Michalewich, A. Fortune, T. Burdett, S. Walker, G. Anderson, and K. Sorenson.Ralph S. Baker (TerraTherm, Inc./USA)

Lessons Learned from 20 Years Treating Pesticide-Impacted Soils in Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Italy, and the USA Using In Situ Chemical Reduction. A.G. Seech, J.T. Slater, and R.A. Brown.Alan G. Seech (PeroxyChem, LLC/USA)

* Low-Concentration Chlorinated Site in Italy Treated Using Liquid Activated Carbon: Laboratory Tests, Field Evaluation, and Full-Scale Application. M. Petrangeli Papini, F. Arjmand, P. Goria, M. Carboni, L. Cesta Incani, M. Bacchi, P. Bruni, and J. Birnstingl.Marco Petrangeli Papini (University of Rome “La Sapienza”/Italy)

* Mass Determination in Soil Using Whole-Core Soil Sampling Analysis in Brazil. M.T. Riyis, H.L. Giacheti, and M.T. Riyis.Marcos T. Riyis (ECD Sondagens Ambientais/Brazil)


38

* Microscale Geophysics for Characterizing Complex Hot-Spot Areas: Comparison of Three Methods. N. Tuxen, N. Hamburger, E. Auken, E. Nørmark, A.V. Christiansen, M.C. Looms, L. Nielsen, I. Møller, G. Vignoli, K.E. Klint, A. Edsen, and T.H. Larsen.Nina Tuxen (Capital Region of Denmark/Denmark)

* Performance Evaluation of Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation at a Site in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. J.K. Henderson, L.M. Trento, I. Camargo, C.H. Araújo, M. McMaster, S. Justicia Leon, and M. Rodrigues de Sousa.James K. Henderson (E.I. DuPont/Brazil)

* Rehabilitation of an Old Industrial Area in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Contaminated by Chlorinated Compounds. M. Sillos, S.C. Nascimento, A. Passarelli, R.G.R. Oliveira, and S.B. De Souza.Marcos Sillos (Edutech Ambiental/Brazil)

* Smart Characterization for a DNAPL Source Zone in Sao Paulo, Brazil. M.V. Cavalin, N. Welty, and M. Saccente.Maurício Viotti Cavalin (ARCADIS/Brazil)

* Sustainable, Thermally-Enhanced Degradation at a Methylene Chloride Site in the UK. J. Baldock and J. Dablow.James Baldock (ERM/United Kingdom)

Thermal Remediation Across Europe: Four Approaches in Four Countries. N. Ploug, J. Holm, M. Jensen, G. Heron, and S. Nielsen.Niels Ploug (Kruger A/S/Denmark)

* Tracing an Extensive MtBE Plume in a Sandy Aquifer Using Thorough Hydrogeological Site Understanding. L.C. Larsen and P. Johansen.Lars C. Larsen (Orbicon A/S/Denmark)

D1. Assessment and Mitigation of the Vapor Intrusion PathwayPlatforms Monday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: J. Stuart Bailey (Amec Foster Wheeler) Kelly Smith (Land Science Technologies)

AARST/ANSI Standard for the Installation of Active Soil Depressurization (ASD) Systems for Radon and Vapor Intrusion. D. Kapturowski.Dave Kapturowski (Spruce Environmental Technologies, Inc./USA)

* Active Vapor Intrusion Mitigation at Pharmaceutical Manufacturer with Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) Technology. G. Iosue and M. Sequino.Glenn Nicholas Iosue (ioSue, LLC/USA)

* Advanced Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Methodologies for Complex Subsurface Conditions. O.J. Uppal, S.H. Abrams, M. Ambrusch, N. Najib, and K. Novalis.Omer Uppal (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

* Assessing Vapor Intrusion Associated with a Large LNAPL Plume. D. Beck, T. Kinney, and B. Landale.Beth Landale (GHD/USA)

* Assessing Vapor Intrusion: A Tale of Two Case Studies—Is Mitigation Required? D. Beck, T. Kinney, and B. Landale.Thomas M. Kinney (GHD Services, Inc./USA)

* Assessment of the Vapor Intrusion Pathway from Shallow Groundwater Impacted with Chlorinated Ethenes in a Residential Setting. M. Wojciechowski, D. Tsao, and N.E. Sauer.Nancy E. Sauer (AECOM/USA)

* Blower Door Test to Examine whether VOC Contamination in Indoor Air is Caused by an Internal Source or a Subslab Source. K.B. Nielsen and B. Hvidberg.Karin Birn Nielsen (Central Denmark Region/Denmark)

* Challenges, Results, and Lessons Learned from Thermally Enhanced Soil Vapor Extraction: Seeking NFA for Soil Gas beneath Two Former Dry Cleaner Buildings. J. Love, C. Winell, and G. Geckeler.John Love (Geocon Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Characterization of Sewer Systems as a Major Intrusion Pathway for VOCs to Indoor Air. B. Hvidberg, K.B. Nielsen, and K. Rosenkilde.Boerge Hvidberg (Central Denmark Region/Denmark)

* Comparison of PCE in Subslab Soil Gas and Indoor Air in a Residential Setting before and after Source Remediation. T. Taylor and E. Ivens.Terry Taylor (Anderson Mulholland & Associates/USA)

Crawl Space Data in Residential Vapor Intrusion Investigations: Valuable Evidence or a Source of Uncertainty? L.C. Hall, L.N. Chau, S. Tiscione, P. Soto, and S. Bailey.Linda C. Hall (Amec Foster Wheeler, Inc./USA)

* Dual Remedies for Dual Media: The Successful Use of Subslab Depressurization Systems and Enhanced Bioremediation at a Vapor Intrusion Site. L.J. Campe.Lisa J. Campe (Woodard & Curran/USA)

Effect of Environmental Variables on Measured Soil Gas Concentrations. B. Eklund.Bart Eklund (AECOM/USA)

* Excavation of Source Material to Limit Controls Needed on a Vapor Intrusion Mitigation System. A. Bains, D. Beck, T. Kinney, and B. Landale.Beth Landale (GHD/USA)


39

* Horizontal SVE System to Mitigate Vapor Intrusion of Chlorinated Compounds Underneath a Large Navy Building. M. Pound, D. Payne, P. Chang, V. Hosangadi, L. Smith, N. Durant, C. Bird, and B. Hitchens.Derek Payne (Battelle/USA)

* Implementation and Remote Management of Dynamically Controlled Soil Vapor Extraction and Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Systems at a Former Aerospace Manufacturing Facility. T.H. Hatton, D.J. Nuzzetti, and M.W. Miner.Thomas Hatton (Clean Vapor, LLC/USA)

* Installation of an SSD System through Exterior Foundation Walls under an Existing Commercial Building. J. Boyer, E. Haddad, M. Zlotoff, and R. Farson.Elie H. Haddad (Haley & Aldrich, Inc./USA)

* Installation of Subslab Depressurization Systems (SSDs) at Residences in Southern California. S. Dergham and C. Serlin.Safaa Dergham (Ramboll Environ/USA)

Managing Potential Short-Term TCE Exposure in Vapor Intrusion Investigations at Navy Nonresidential Buildings. D. Caldwell, J. Lowe, and L. Lund.Donna Caldwell (U.S. Navy/USA)

Multiple National Award-Winning Site Vapor Mitigation: Cardinal Health Medical Supply Warehouse in Detroit, Michigan. T.R. Szocinski and T.R. Anthony.Thomas R. Szocinski (Stantec Consulting Ltd./USA)

* Nonresidential Building Vapor Intrusion Lifecycle Cost: When Is Preemptive Mitigation a Good Value? C. Lutes and J. Minchak.Christopher Lutes (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Optimal Design and Performance of Combined SSD/SSV Systems at a PVI Site. E.H. Luo, D. Folkes, and B. Hunter.Hong (Emma) Luo (Chevron Corporation ETC/USA)

* Pressure-Control Methods to Assess Vapor Intrusion: Challenges, Solutions, and Case Studies. C. Lutes, M. Niemet, C. Holton, K. Hallberg, and L. Lund.Christopher Lutes (CH2M HILL/USA)

Prioritized Approach for Investigating Vapor-Intrusion Risk at a Large Military Installation Containing Hundreds of Buildings. M. Pound, L. Smith, R. Ettinger, N. Durant, V. Hosangadi, and D. Roff.Michael Pound (U.S. Navy/USA)

* Remediation Techniques When Sewer Systems are the Intrusion Pathway for VOCs to Indoor Air. K. Rosenkilde, K.B. Nielsen, and B. Hvidberg.Karsten Rosenkilde (Central Denmark Region/Denmark)

* Removing Vapor Intrusion Source Using High-Degree, Angled Electrodes at an Active Manufacturing Facility. T. Edwards, M. Nanista, and L. Soos.Tracy Edwards (Hull & Associates/USA)

Results from Nine Months of Continuous Monitoring of Indoor Air for Chlorinated Solvent Vapors in a Commercial Building. B. Hartman.Blayne Hartman (Hartman Environmental Geoscience/USA)

* Rethinking Recent Vapor Mitigation Trends: A Case Study in Engineering Controls versus In Situ Bioremediation. C.B. Bartley, C.R. Clymer, and P.M. Hudgins.Christopher Bartley (Terracon Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Sealing Expansion Joint and Floor Cracks for Vapor-Intrusion Mitigation at a Large Industrial Building at Naval Air Station North Island. M. Pound, L. Smith, N. Durant, P. Chang, and V. Hosangadi.Lisa V. Smith (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Soil Gas Sampling for Identification of CAH Sources in Groundwater: A Case Study. A. Mastorgio, L. Romele, S. Saponaro, and E. Sezenna.Andrea Mastorgio (Politecnico di Milano—DICA/Italy)

* Stepping It Up: Transient Vacuum Testing. J.L. Bankston, E.S. Blodgett, K.A. Lindstrom, D.E. Richard, and B.C. Schwie.Brad Schwie (Barr Engineering Company/USA)

* Use of Horizontal Drilling/Trenchless Technology to Mitigate CVOC Vapor Intrusion: A Case Study Providing Tips, Tricks, and Considerations at Active Facilities. D. MacDonald, L.C. Burkhardt, and J. Hone.David MacDonald (Woodard & Curran/USA)

* Vapor Intrusion Conceptual Site Model Development for Vapor Migration in Subsurface Sewers. A.P. Friedrich.Aaron Friedrich (ERM/USA)

D2. Addressing Petroleum Vapor Intrusion at Leaking Underground Storage SitesPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Bart Eklund (AECOM) Todd A. McAlary (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.)

* Comparison of New Screening Criteria at Petroleum-Vapor Intrusion Sites Using Multiple Sources of Empirical Data. J.C. Hopp and L.J. Kennedy.Josh Hopp (Kennedy/Jenks Consultants/USA)

* Controlled-Release Experiments on E10 and E85 Fate in the Vadose Zone. J. Peng, R. Schmidt, N.R. de Sieyes, L. Zivalic, M.C. Buelow, I. Petcan, K.M. Pires Pinheiro, M. Bolotaolo, D.M. Mackay, T.E. Buscheck, N.J. Sihota, H. Luo, and R. Kolhatkar.Juan Peng (University of California, Davis/USA)


40

* Evaluation of the Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Risk of Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) and 1,2 Dichloroethane (1,2 DCA). M.A. Lahvis, Q. Lu, and J. Paslawski.Matthew Lahvis (Shell Global Solutions/USA)

Fingerprinting and Source Indicators for Efficient Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Investigations. L.M. Beckley, T.E. McHugh, D. Kingham, and S. Fiorenza.Lila M. Beckley (GSI Environmental Inc./USA)

* Hydrocarbons in Indoor Air: Do They Originate from Oil Pollution or Something Else? D. Harrekilde and N. Just.Dorte Harrekilde (Ramboll/Denmark)

PVI Facts, Fallacies, and Implications and the Need for 1,000+ Liter Indoor Air and Subslab Vapor Samples. J. Nagashima and R. Brewer.Josh Nagashima (State of Hawaii/USA)

UC Davis Controlled-Release Experiments on Methane Fate in the Vadose Zone. N.R. de Sieyes, J. Peng, R. Schmidt, M. Felice, M. Beulow, I. Petcan, N. Spadone, M. Tsumura, K. Scow, D. Mackay, T. Buscheck, N. Sihota, E. Hong, and R. Kolhatkar.Nicholas de Sieyes (University of California, Davis/USA)

Vapor Intrusion Modeling Evaluation of 1,2-DCA and EDB at Historical UST Releases of Leaded Gasoline. G.E. DeVaull.George E. DeVaull (Shell Global Solutions [US], Inc./USA)

D3. Use of Innovative Measurement Techniques (e.g., Passive Samplers, Real-Time Sensors)Platforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Thomas McHugh (GSI Environmental, Inc.) Henry Schuver (U.S. EPA)

* CFD Simulation of Sustainable, Passive-Compartment Ventilation to Avoid Vapor Intrusion. B.N. Hoffmark, T.V. Bote, M. Dreyer, J. Bukh, L.M. Fischer, and M. Wahid.Bjarke N. Hoffmark (COWI A/S/Denmark)

Comparison of Field Analytical Instruments for Vapor Intrusion Assessments. C.N. Gale, T.A. McAlary, H. Groenevelt, L.V. Smith, and K. Henderson.Christopher Gale (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Development and Test of an Optical Sensor for Real-Time Measurement of Volatile Organic Contaminants in Air. N. Hamburger, M. Christophersen, L. Bennedsen, H. Hansen, F. Bak, M. Terkelsen, Y. Tseng, P. Tidemand-Lichtenberg, and C. Pedersen.Nancy Hamburger (The Capital Region of Denmark/Denmark)

* High-Volume Sampling (HVS) for Subslab Vapor Characterization: Compilation and Statistical Analysis of >100 Tests. T. McAlary, D. Bertrand, P. Nicholson, W. Wertz, and D. Mali.Todd A. McAlary (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./Canada)

* High-Volume Sampling: Characterizing Two Large Buildings in One Week. J. Yeager, J. Connolly, D.G. Larson, and C. Martin.Jessica Yeager (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

How to Measure and Document the Effect of Intrusion to the Indoor Climate from Drains in Residential Settings. M. Langeland and S. Kreilgaard.Majbrith Langeland (SVECO/Grontmij A/S/Denmark)

Identification of Alternative Vapor Intrusion Pathways Using Controlled Pressure Testing, Soil Gas Monitoring, and Screening Model Calculations. Y. Guo, C. Holton, H. Luo, P. Dahlen, K. Gorder, E. Dettenmaier, and P. Johnson.Yuanming Guo (Arizona State University/USA)

Multisite Evaluation of Passive Soil Gas Samplers and Comparison to Active Sampling Methods. I. Hers, J. Shepherd, D. Hodges, J. Corbett, and J. Medd.Ian Hers (Golder Associates Ltd./Canada)

* Passive Sampling for Vapor Intrusion Assessment: Summary of a 5-Year Study Funded by ESTCP. T. McAlary and H. Groenevelt.Todd A. McAlary (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./Canada)

Results from a High-Quality, Long-Duration Study of Passive Samplers for Indoor Air Monitoring: Determining Accurate Uptake Rates. H. O’Neill, M. Bates, S. Thornley.Harry O’Neill (Beacon Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

Tracer Estimation of Attenuation Factors at Vapor Intrusion Sites. P. Loll, P. Larsen, H.-H. Clausen, N. Muchitsch, C. Larsen, N. Bergsøe, H. Østergaard, and M. Wahid.Per Loll (DMR A/S/Denmark)

* Using Multiple Lines-of-Evidence to Evaluate the Influence of Building Materials in a Vapor Intrusion Investigation. C.E. Regan and R.J. Fiacco.Catherine Regan (ERM/USA)

* Vapor Intrusion or Indoor Source? A Practical Sampling Protocol to Use CSIA for Indoor Air. P.W. McLoughlin, A.D. Peacock, and R.J. Pirkle.Pat McLoughlin (Pace Analytical Energy Services/USA)


41

Vinyl Chloride Vapor Intrusion and Factors Controlling the Rate of Aerobic Biodegradation in the Vadose Zone. B.M. Patterson, R. Aravena, and G.B. Davis.Bradley M. Patterson (CSIRO Land and Water/Australia)

D4. Risk Assessment and Risk Management (e.g., Tools, Using Multiple Lines of Evidence, Accounting for Background)Platforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Loren Lund (CH2M HILL) Nadine Weinberg (ERM)

* Case Studies of the Impact of EPA’s June 2015 Final Vapor Intrusion Guidance on Site Closure Strategies. L. Lund and C. Lutes.Loren Lund (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Comparative Time-Series Analysis of Environmental Factors and Simulation Modeling to Evaluate Vapor Intrusion Sampling Strategies. C. Holton, L. Lund, J. Lower, and P.C. Johnson.Chase Holton (CH2M HILL/USA)

* The Cost of Evolving Vapor Intrusion Guidance and Regulatory Inconsistencies. J. Carnahan and M. Hamilton.Jeffrey Carnahan (EnviroForensics, Inc./USA)

Evaluation of Vapor Intrusion at an Active Chemical Manufacturing and Distribution Facility. J. Robb, C. Regan, N. Weinberg, and M.C. Leahy.Joseph Robb (ERM/USA)

* For Better or for Worse: The Impact of PCE and TCE Toxicity Value Updates on Site Cleanup. I. Gladstone.Ileen Gladstone (GEI Consultants, Inc/USA)

A Life-Cycle and Cost Analysis of Preemptive Mitigation at Industrial Vapor Intrusion Sites with Multiple Buildings. L. Lund, J. Lowe, and D. Caldwell.Loren Lund (CH2M HILL/USA)

Managing Risk: Developing a Portfolio Management Policy for Vapor Intrusion. N. Weinberg and E. LeBlanc.Nadine Weinberg (ERM/USA)

* A Model for Estimating Vapor Intrusion Risk Posed to Trenching Construction Workers. D. Hou and M. Rigby.Deyi Hou (Parsons Corp./USA)

* New Study of Background Indoor Air Levels of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Air-Phase Petroleum Hydrocarbons (APH) in Office Buildings and Schools. R.J. Rago and A. Rezendes.Richard J. Rago (Haley & Aldrich, Inc./USA)

* A No-Nonsense Vapor Intrusion Monitoring Exit Strategy...Finally. L.L. Cole.Linda Cole (U.S. Navy/USA)

A Quantitative Decision Framework for Analysis of Multiple Lines of Evidence at Industrial Vapor Intrusion (VI) Sites. P. Venable, T. Chaudhry, D. Caldwell, C. Lutes, K. Hallberg, and L. Lund.Patricia Venable (U.S. Navy/USA)

Radon and Other Surrogate Measures for Chemical Vapor Intrusion (VI): Fitting Into Existing Risk Management Frameworks? H. Schuver, C. Lutes, and R. Truesdale.Henry Schuver (U.S. EPA/USA)

* A Rational Approach to the Definition and Evaluation of Preferential Pathways for Vapor Intrusion. D. Folkes, T. McAlary, R. Ettinger, and H. Dawson.David Folkes (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

Relating Mass Flux Concepts to Attenuation Factors for Vapor Intrusion Assessment. H. Dawson, T. McAlary, and W. Wertz.Helen E. Dawson (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

Sub-Slab Attenuation Factors and Temporal Variations: Results from Nine Industrial Buildings at Naval Air Station North Island. V.S. Hosangadi, M. Pound, N. Durant, R. Ettinger, and L. Smith.Vitthal S. Hosangadi (NOREAS, Inc./USA)

* Trends in Vapor Intrusion Regulation and Urban Investigation and Assessment. J.F. Good, J. Hayes, B. Blum, and J. Graber.Joseph Good (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

* Using Site-Specific Information to Select Sampling Methods during Vapor Intrusion Investigation. M.N. Wacksman.Mitch Wacksman (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Challenges Posed by Former Dry Cleaner Operations in a Classic Urban Setting. F.R. Coll and J. Ritenour.Frederic Coll (AECOM/USA)

* Vapor Intrusion Risk Evaluation Using EPA Region 9’s Action Levels for TCE in Indoor Air at a Superfund Site in the San Francisco Bay Area. V.S. Mankad and N. Diem.Vibhav S. Mankad (GHD Services, Inc./USA)

* What Do Those Soil-Gas Analysis Results Really Indicate? J.M. Harless, C. Kehres-Dietrich, and P. Roberts.James M. Harless (SME/USA)


42

D5. Assessment and Remediation at Cold Regions Research and Engineering LaboratoryPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Darrell A. Moore (U.S. Army Corp of Engineers) Jeffrey Pickett (Amec Foster Wheeler)

* Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory: A Challenging Vapor Intrusion Investigation and Mitigation Site. J.S. Pickett and D.A. Moore.Jeffrey Pickett (Amec Foster Wheeler, Inc./USA)

A Dynamic Three-Dimensional Conceptual Site Model for CRREL: CSM as an Assessment Tool. R.R. Rustad, S.F. Calkin, and D.A. Moore.Rod R. Rustad (Amec Foster Wheeler, Inc./USA)

Estimating SVE Design Parameters, Contaminated Soil Volume, and Initial TCE Mass from Pilot-Test Data. L. Stewart, R. Belcher, and G. Gordon.Bo Stewart (Praxis Environmental/USA)

* Fate and Transport of a Large, High-Concentration TCE Vapor Plume in a Deep Vadose Zone. R.R. Rustad, S.F. Calkin, and D.M. Groher.Rod R. Rustad (Amec Foster Wheeler, Inc./USA)

* Mitigation of Vapor Intrusion from Storm Sewers at the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory Using Duck-Bill Check Valves. G.P. Gordon.Glen P. Gordon (Amec Foster Wheeler, Inc./USA)

* Quantifying TCE Mass Utilizing Collaborative, Multimedia Analytical, and High-Resolution Screening Techniques. S.F. Calkin, R.R. Rustad, M. Rossi, and D.M. Groher.Scott Calkin (Amec Foster Wheeler, Inc./USA)

Utilizing Hapsite GC/MS as a Vapor Intrusion/Encroachment Investigation Tool for Defining Trichloroethene Impacts in Indoor Air. W.D. Calicchio and K.A. Malinowski.Wolfgang Calicchio (Amec Foster Wheeler, Inc./USA)

The Value of an Iterative Approach to VI Evaluation and Mitigation: Lessons Learned at the CRREL Laboratory, Hanover, NH. D. Folkes and D. Tripp.David Folkes (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Vapor Mitigation Challenges at the Main Laboratory Building Located at Cold Regions Research Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, New Hampshire. N.R. Schofield and M.E. Cicalese.Neil Schofield (Sovereign Consulting, Inc./USA)


D6. Radon GasPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Christopher Lutes (CH2M HILL) Bruce Snead (Kansas State University)

Best Practices for Design and Operation of the Most Effective and Sustainable Active Soil-Depressurization Systems. M. Koch and K. Hoylman.Matthew Koch (Southern Radon Reduction/USA)

* Fluid Mechanics and Passive Mitigation, Including RRNC. G. Hodgden.Gary Hodgden (AQP, Inc./USA)

Fluid Mechanics of Soil Gas Entry and Fate within Buildings as Applied to Indoor Soil Gas Measurements and Mitigation. G. Hodgden.Gary Hodgden (AQP, Inc./USA)

New Methods for Design, Monitoring, and Optimization of Subslab Depressurization Systems for Radon and VOCs. T. McAlary, P. Nicholson, W. Wertz, and D. Mali.Todd A. McAlary (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./Canada)

Testing Multifamily Buildings for Radon: The Challenges Facing Radon and Environmental Professionals. T. McDonald and J. Karns.Tony McDonald (A-Z Solutions, Inc./USA)

* Update on Standards of Practice for Soil Gas Mitigation in the U.S. G. Hodgden.Gary Hodgden (AQP, Inc./USA)

* Vacuum Strength Needs: Limitations and Whole Building Consideration When Applying ASD for Mitigating Soil Gas Entry. G. Hodgden.Gary Hodgden (AQP, Inc./USA)

D7. Heavy Metal and Metalloid Fate and TransportPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Solomon Gbondo-Tugbawa (Louis Berger)Nanjun V. Shetty (AECOM)

The Complexities of Nickel Complexation. J. McDonough, J. Gillow, R. Royer, and G. Sitomer.Jeff McDonough (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* Distribution Characteristics of Heavy Metals in Contaminated Sediment by a Sequential Extraction Procedure. W.-S. Shin, B.-R. Kim, K.-R. Na, and Y.-K. Kim.Woo-Seok Shin (Hankyong National University/South Korea)

43

* Estimating the History of Metal Loadings to an East Coast Estuary Using Be-7 and Cs-137 Dating Techniques. E.A. Garvey, A. Zarnadze, L. Warner, and R.F. Bopp.Edward Garvey (Louis Berger/USA)

* Identification of the Source of Hexavalent Chromium in Groundwater through Geochemical and Matrix Diffusion Evaluations. J.T. Lyons, K.T. Baker, M.R. Lamar, R.L. Olsen, N.T. Smith, and K.S. Whiting.James Lyons (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/USA)

Lines-of-Evidence Approach to Characterizing Hexavalent Chromium in Legacy Groundwater Monitoring Wells. C.S. Alger, C. Jantzen-Marson, and C. Steedman.Christopher S. Alger (Iris Environmental/USA)

* Modeling of the Potential for MNA of a Uranium Plume Using PHREEQC and MT3D at a Fractured Rock Site in the Mid-Atlantic. J.R. House, B. Zewe, and B. Aigler.Jason R. House (Woodard & Curran/USA)

Removal of Chromium in Groundwater Near a River: Tracking Additive-Free In Situ Treatment with Geochemical Indicators and Stable Isotopes. B.K. Schroth, M.J. Barackman, and J. Piper.Brian Schroth (CH2M HILL/USA)

Soluble Phosphates for Uranium Treatment in Groundwater: Chemistry and Engineering Considerations for Practical Application. J. Gillow, P. Moran, M. Hay, M. Gentile, A. Griffin, and C. Divine.Jeff Gillow (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

D8. Metals Remediation ApproachesPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Arul Ayyaswami (Tetra Tech, Inc.) Stephan Pawelczyk (Safe Work and Environments)

A Comparative Analysis of Adsorbents for Arsenic Removal from Contaminated Groundwater. C. Hand and L. McGaughey.Charles Hand (Amec Foster Wheeler, Inc./USA)

* A Green Approach to a Modern Mess: ISCR of the Former Modern Electroplating Facility. F. Ricciardi, P. Bhunia, and P. Uzgiris.Paul Uzgiris (Weston & Sampson/USA)

* Adsorption Characteristics of Heavy Metals (Ni2+, Zn2+, Cu2+, Pb2+, and Cd2+) by Seaweed Biochar. W.-S. Shin, B.-R. Kim, and Y.-K. Kim.Woo-Seok Shin (Hankyong National University/South Korea)

Biogeochemical Treatment Approach for Lead Stabilization in Soil. R. Britto, D. Grady, and M. Spangberg.Ronnie Britto (Tetra Tech, Inc./USA)

* Effects on Metals Solubility by Activated Persulfate. J. Molin, B. Smith, A. Seech, and J. Lindsey.Josephine Molin (PeroxyChem, LLC/USA)

* Evaluation and Implementation of an Alternative Remedial Approach for Cr+6 and Ni: Bench-Scale and Pilot-Scale Studies. D. Gray, D. Cassidy, H. Hassanien, and C. Lauzon.Doug Gray (AECOM/USA)

* Evaluation of ISCO, ISCR, and Bioremediation Reagents for the Treatment of Mixed-Source Area Impacts at an Industrial Site in Brazil. J. Molin, B. Smith, A. Seech, and A. Hassel.Josephine Molin (PeroxyChem, LLC/USA)

* In Situ Metals Treatment Strategies: Testing for Optimization of Injection-Based Emplaced Reactive Barriers and Conventional PRBs. J. Gillow, S. Urich, M. Hay, S. Offenberger, D. Liles, and J. Horst.Jeff Gillow (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* In Situ Remediation of Shallow Soils Impacted by Arsenic-Contaminated Groundwater Seeps. S. Saalfield, F. Barranco, D. Straume, and S. Yankay.Samantha L. Saalfield (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC/USA)

In Situ Treatment of Groundwater Containing Aluminum, Arsenic, Chromium, Copper, Lead, and Nickel Using ZVI and Reactive Minerals. A.G. Seech, J. Molin, E. Bakkom, and M. Tarbert.Alan G. Seech (PeroxyChem, LLC/USA)

* In Situ Treatment of Mobile Uranium Using Calcium Phosphate. D. Adilman, J. deLemos, P. Zeeb, D. Larson, P. Schillig, L. Capaldi, L. Lammers, A. Quicksall, H. Hagar, B. Thompson, and J. Hunt.David Adilman (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Pilot on Thermal-Enhanced SVE of Mercury in Soil and Bedrock under an Ongoing Chloralkali Plant. L. Torin, Å. Eriksson, E. Bergeron, B.O. Jorlöv, and I. Frössling.Lena Torin (Golder Associates AB/Sweden)

* Remediation of a Former Sludge-Pit Chlorinated-Solvent Groundwater Plume while Minimizing Secondary Arsenic Impacts. J.R. Dickson, R.W. Stenson, C. Winkeljohn, and D. Lonergan.James R. Dickson (CTI and Associates, Inc./USA)

* Role of Risk Perception in Non-Point Metals Source Pollution Cleanup. M.A. Harclerode, P. Lal, N. Vedwan, B. Wolde, and M.E. Miller.Melissa Harclerode (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

Thermal Strategies for Mercury Removal and Vapor-Phase Sulfur Stabilization. D.G. Jackson, M.E. Denham, C.A. Eddy-Dilek, and B.B. Looney.Dennis G. Jackson (Savannah River National Laboratory/USA)


44

* Treatment of Mercury and Chlorinated Solvents by In Situ Chemical Reduction. A. Weston, S. Dore, D. Pope, and C. Bucior.Sophia Dore (GHD/USA)

* Update on In Situ Groundwater Remediation of Heavy Metals in an Active Manufacturing Facility. P.J. McCall, L.A. Sweet, and A.D. Rauss.Patti J. McCall (Tetra Tech, Inc./USA)

D9. Chromium Remediation ApproachesPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Stanley C. Haskins (In-Situ Oxidative Technologies [ISOTEC]) Peter Storch (EHS Support)

Combined Approach Accelerates Closure of a Chromium-Plating Facility. J. Rehage, C. Neeley, J. Woertz, and S. Pal.Jim Rehage (AECOM/USA)

* Development of a Conceptual Site Model for the Distribution and Natural Attenuation of Hexavalent Chromium in Groundwater Following Soil Remediation at a Former Chromate Ore Processing Facility. L. Hellerich, S. Sharma, S. Mikaelian, and M. Terril.Sachin Sharma (AECOM/USA)

* Effectiveness of In Situ Chemical Reduction of Cr(VI) in Groundwater at a Former Chromate Ore Processing Facility. L. Hellerich, T. Abdul-Matin, A. Salazar, S. Mikaelian, and M. Terril.Tauhirah Abdul-Matin (AECOM/USA)

Full-Scale In Situ Gaseous Reduction of Hexavalent Chromium in Vadose Zone Soils with H2S Gas.B.R. Hitchens, A.C. Bird, and K. Craig.Brian Hitchens (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Full-Scale In Situ Remediation of Residual Hexavalent Chromium at a Site with Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compounds. J. Borski, S.V.F. Kozicki, M.C. Ciardelli, B.D. Symons, M.G. Mason, B.C. Hanks, and T. Emerson.Sharon Kozicki (Foth Infrastructure and Environment/USA)

Hexavalent Chromium Treatment Using an Aboveground, Two-Stage Bioreactor System at the Hinkley Site. M. Davidson, B. Marvin, C. Wildman, G. Uminskiy, I. Baker, B. Brunswick, and B. Costello.Mark M. Davidson (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

* In Situ Chemical Reduction of Hexavalent Chromium in Deep Vadose Zone Soil. M. Burns, D. Carstens, A. Bakenne, G. Rieger, D. Rykaczewski, and R. Noel De Tilly.Matthew Burns (WSP | Parsons Brinkerhoff/USA)

In Situ Geochemical Fixation of Chromium in Groundwater Using Calcium Polysulfide at an Active Site in Australia. P.J. Storch.Peter Storch (EHS Support/Australia)


* In Situ Hexavalent Chromium Reduction by Injection of Organic Substrates in the Aquifer. L. Brizzi, F. Galbusera, A. Mastorgio, S. Saponaro, and E. Sezenna.Andrea Mastorgio (Politecnico di Milano—DICA/Italy)

* In Situ Stabilization of Chromium in Soil and Groundwater. L. Kessel.Lowell Kessel (CERES Corporation/USA)

* Injection of Calcium Polysulfide Using Jet-Assisted Hydraulic Fracturing to Efficiently Treat a Hexavalent Chromium Plume. S. Conkle, M. Perlmutter, C. Hudson, M. Dickerson, and D. Knight.Sarah Conkle (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Injection of Emulsified Vegetable Oil for Full-Scale In Situ Treatment of Hexavalent Chromium. H. Holbrook, R. Mora, and K. Hinckley.Holly Holbrook (AECOM/USA)

* Performance Assessment of Reductant-Amended Backfill as Part of the Groundwater Remediation at a Former Chromate Ore Processing Facility. L. Hellerich, S. Sharma, S. Mikaelian, and M. Terril.Lucas Hellerich (AECOM/USA)

* Remediation of Hexavalent Chromium at a Brownfield Site in Scotland Using an Innovative Form of Calcium Polysulfide. R.J.F. Bewley and D. Gemmell.Richard J.F. Bewley (AECOM/England)

D10. Mine Remediation and Closure StrategiesPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChair: Carolyn Kotsol (Battelle)

* Evaluation of Batch versus Continuous Treatment of Acid Mine Drainage when Sludge Dewatering and O&M Costs are Primary Factors. C. Collins, E. Hicks, G. Hunter, and T. Krug.Courtney Coliins (Black & Veatch/USA)

Heavy Metals Remediation Design: Temporary or Long-Term Solutions? L. Kessel.Lowell Kessel (CERES Corporation/USA)

* Holistic Cure for a Multiparty Mine Site in Northern Nevada. R.I. Thun.Roy Thun (Bridge Environmental/USA)

Measuring the Success of In Situ Soil Remediation Techniques for Regulatory Acceptance at Mine-Impacted Sites. C.J. Croskey and D.D. Dobrinen.Cody Croskey (TREC/Woodard & Curran/USA)

* Mine-Tailing Drainage: A Bottoms-Up Approach Using HDD Drilling and Installation Methods. D. Ombalski, J. Yablonski, and B.D. Younkin.Dan Ombalski (Directed Technologies Drilling, Inc./USA)

45

Passive Metal Removal in Mining-Influenced Water with Permanganate Tablets and Alkaline Permanganate. P.J. Dugan and D. Hartsough.Pamela Dugan (Carus Corporation/USA)

* Remediating Mine Waste-Impacted Streams: A Flexible Solution Using Natural Channel Design. M.A. Mangold.Mace A. Mangold (TREC/Woodard & Curran/USA)

* Surface Water Modeling: Determination of Stormwater Remedial Approaches in an Urban Setting. L. Lehigh.Lance Lehigh (TREC/Woodard & Curran/USA)

E1. In Situ Remediation of Petroleum HydrocarbonsPlatforms Monday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Richelle Allen-King (University at Buffalo, SUNY) David Burris (Integrated Science & Technology, Inc.)

* Anaerobic Bio-oxidation: A Sustainable Remedial Technology for the Treatment of BTEX. J. Verhack, K. Enkels, K. Claeys, K. Van Geert, and W. Gevaerts.Jeroen Verhack (ARCADIS Belgium/Belgium)

Application of Alkaline-Activated Persulfate to Treat Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contamination beneath the Active Construction of a 32 Story High-Rise. M.C. Marley, K. O’Shaughnessy, J. Hickey, and S.E. Panter.Michael Marley (XDD Environmental, LLC/USA)

* Biochar as a Phosphorus Source for Microbial Populations Degrading Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Contaminated Aquifers. L. Moehlman, J. Hamilton, A. Schebel, C. Low, D. Peak, S.D. Siciliano, J. Grosskleg, and T. Carlson.Lisa Moehlman (University of Saskatchewan/Canada)

* Biodegradation of Engine Oil by Fungi from Mangrove Habitat. F. Ameen, S. Hadi, M. Moslem, and F. Alshehri.Fuad Ameen Saad Hasan (King Saud University/Saudi Arabia)

* Bioremediation of Refined and Unrefined Weathered Petroleum Hydrocarbons: An Exploration of Injection Strategies. J. Powell and K.B. Rapp.Jeff Powell (Pinnacle Engineering, Inc./USA)

* Calcium Peroxide Treatment of TPH in a Sensitive Area. T. Pac, S. Braga, V. Appiah, J. Drobinski, and D. Banks.Timothy Pac (ERM/USA)

* The Costs and Benefits of Using an Existing GWTS for ISTR. R. Swift, R. Pineo, S. Nielsen, N. Stone, G. Crisp, R. Stoll, M. Apfelbaum, C. Rockwell, P. Nangeroni, F. Symmes, and R. Ricard.Robin Swift (TerraTherm, Inc./USA)

Degradation of Heavily Weathered Petroleum Hydrocarbons with Enzymatic Cocktail Encapsulated in a Biodegradable Shell. K.H. Kucharzyk, A.D. Duong, R. Darlington, and R. Lalgudi.Kate Kucharzyk (Battelle/USA)

* Developing an Anaerobic Bioaugmentation Culture for Benzene Bioremediation. S. Dworatzek, P. Dollar, E. Edwards, F. Luo, and T. Carlson.Sandra Dworatzek (SiREM/Canada)

Dual Anaerobic-Aerobic Cultures Bioaugmented on GAC for Treatment of Chlorinated Benzenes and Benzene in Contaminated Groundwater and Sediments. M.M. Lorah, J.A. Teunis, D.M. Akob, D. Dunlap, E.J. Bouwer, S. Chow, N. Durant, and A. Wadhawan.Michelle M. Lorah (U.S. Geological Survey/USA)

* Evaluation and Selective Remediation of Commingled Separate Phase Hydrocarbon Plumes. J. Leu, J. Lin, S. O’Connell, C. Crozier, and G.A. Ulrich.Jim Leu (Parsons Corp./USA)

* In Situ Chemical Oxidation Injection and Extraction Remedial Strategy for Petroleum-Impacted Soil and Groundwater at an Active Railyard. A. Cuellar, T. Rabideau, and C. Bartz.Tammy Rabideau (Tetra Tech, Inc./USA)

* Innovative Combined-Remedies Approach Using Liquid Activated Carbon (LAC) and Calcium Oxyhydroxide Applied to Benzene Plume Reaches Nondetect within 30 Days. A.M. Cedzo and C. Hultgren.Ashley Cedzo (Regenesis/USA)

Innovative Strategy for Sulfate Remediation of a Petroleum-Impacted Source Zone. A. Lee, R.W. Schultz, C.L. Rain, P.G. Smith, C. Glenn, S. Abrams, and S. Siri.Annie Lee (Langan Treadwell Rollo/USA)

Lessons Learned during Injection of Sulfate-Based Amendments. S. Rosansky, R. Darlington, C. Scala, and A. Bodour.Stephen Rosansky (Battelle/USA)

Multiple-Phase Extraction before and during Active Subsurface Thermal-Conduction Heating to Remediate Mixed Chlorinated VOCs and Petroleum Hydrocarbons. G. Subramaniam, T. Ford, X. Chen, and G. Geckeler.Ganesh Subramaniam (ECC/USA)

* Multiscale Comparison of Oxidation, Sparging, Surfactant, and Thermal Treatment Efficiencies on BTEX Soil Remediation. F. Jousse, O. Atteia, F. Cazals, and G. Cohen.Olivier Atteia (Bordeaux Polytechnical Institute/France)

* A Novel and Economical Method for Remediating Benzene at a Large-Scale Application in Texas. A.G. Horton and C.A. Montero.Charles Montero (Rosengarten, Smith & Assoc., Inc./USA)


46

* Optimized Remedial Approach for TPH at a Pipeline-Release Site. D. Gray, N. Sauer, A. Trowbridge, and R. Gorka.Doug Gray (AECOM/USA)

* Pozzolan-Enhanced, ISCO-Degraded Contaminants: Reduced Leaching and Improved Soil Properties of Petroleum DNAPL-Impacted Soils. V.J. Srivastava, D.P. Cassidy, F.J. Dombrowki, and J.W. Lingle.Vipul J. Srivastava (CH2M HILL/USA)

Remedy Selection Using Sulfate-Enhanced Technologies for Chlorinated Solvents and Petroleum Hydrocarbons. B.M. Henry, D.R. Griffiths, E.C. Heyse, and A. Weilbacher.Bruce M. Henry (Parsons Corp./USA)

* Rethinking the Strategy: In Situ Treatment Train Achieves Closure of an LNAPL Source Area. K.A. Morris.Kevin Morris (ERM/USA)

* Sulfate-Enhanced Bioremediation of BTEX: Full-Scale Application. B. Elkins, E. Alperin, and M. Branson.Brad Elkins (EOS Remediation, LLC/USA)

* Treatability Study of Sulfate Injection to Enhance Anaerobic Biodegradation of BTEX in Groundwater. C. Scala, R. Darlington, H. Rectanus, S. Rosansky, J. Ratz, and C. Zenigami.Carolyn Scala (Battelle/USA)

E2. Management of Complex LNAPL SitesPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Tom Palaia (CH2M HILL) Derek W. Tomlinson (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.)

Applying LNAPL Transmissivity Standard Internationally as a Site Evaluation Tool. T.R. Andrews, C. Nogueira, and D. Stabile.Trevre Andrews (CH2M HILL/USA)

Automated LNAPL Baildown Testing Equipment: Better, Cheaper, and Safer Data. A. Pennington, J. Smith, and S. Gaito.Andy Pennington (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

A Case Study in LNAPL Management Strategy Decisions Based on a Technically Sound LCSM. J. Smith, C. Barton, J. Quinnan, and D. Favero.Jonathon Smith (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

A Culvert Runs through It: The Epicenter of an Evolving Conceptual Site Model. H. Tahon, J. Culp, and D.W. Tomlinson.Heather Tahon (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Evaluation of LNAPL Transmissivity as a Metric for LNAPL Recoverability. J.M. Hawthorne, S. Garg, and L. Reyenga.J. Michael Hawthorne (GEI Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Getting More Out of Your TPH Data and Methods for Undisturbed Soil Cores to Profile Contaminant Distributions. T.R. Andrews and M. Niemet.Trevre Andrews (CH2M HILL/USA)

* The Importance of Single Well Conceptual Models. T.R. Andrews.Trevre Andrews (CH2M HILL/USA)

* LNAPL Distribution and Recoverability Modeling as a Basis for Remedial Longevity. T.R. Andrews and M. Bruno.Trevre Andrews (CH2M HILL/USA)

LNAPL Management Strategy for Refinery Site with Multiple Releases. I. Hers, T. Hawkins, D. Parks, P. Jourabchi, and B. McDonald.Ian Hers (Golder Associates Ltd./Canada)

Magnitude of Potential Errors in LNAPL Transmissivity Calculations in Complex Confined and Perched LNAPL Conditions. J.M. Hawthorne and L. Reyenga.J. Michael Hawthorne (GEI Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Multiphase Simulations for Design of a Surfactant-Enhanced Aquifer Remediation. P.C. de Blanc, S.R. Lenschow, A.G. Christensen, M.M. Mygind, A.M. Lindof, and K. Kostarelos.Phillip de Blanc (GSI Environmental Inc./USA)

* Recovery of LNAPL from a Hillside Moraine and Boulder Field at a Historic Multimillion-Liter Fuel Spill from an Explosion in a Rock Storage Facility. J. Bergman, K. Forsberg, G. Leonard, and J. Birnstingl.Jonny Bergman (RGS 90 Sverige AB/Sweden)

* Remediation and Restoration of the Lac-Megantic, Quebec, Oil Train Disaster. T. Schwendeman, J. Marcotte, and D. Bergeron.Todd Schwendeman (AECOM/USA)

* A Review of State LNAPL Guidance and Regulations: Changes are Coming. T.R. Andrews.Trevre Andrews (CH2M HILL/USA)

Understanding Complex LNAPL Sites: Illustrated Handbook of LNAPL Fate and Behavior in the Subsurface. D.W. Tomlinson, M.O. Rivett, R. Sweeney, J.W.N. Smith, S. Garg, S. Laharne, S.F. Thorton, G.P. Wealthall, A.O. Thomas, and P.J. Zeeb.Derek W. Tomlinson (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)


47

E3. LNAPL Recovery in Challenging EnvironmentsPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Anders G. Christensen (NIRAS A/S) Jeffrey Kuhn (Montana Dept. of Environmental Quality)

Innovative Surfactant System Formulations for LNAPL Recovery. G.M. Birk, D. Alden, J.H. Harwell, and M. Hasegawa.David Alden (Tersus Environmental, LLC/USA)

* An Integrated, Multiphase Extraction, Soil Vapor Extraction, and Air Sparging Approach for Treatment of LNAPL Impacts. O.J. Uppal, S. Ciambruschini, S.H. Abrams, C. McMahon, M. Ambrusch, N. Najib, and I. Khan.Omer Uppal (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

* Modification of the Method of DNAPL Recovery at a CERCLA Site. M.L. Schmidt, A.M. Heitger, and T. Steib.Martin L. Schmidt (AECOM/USA)

Monitoring and Documentation of In Situ LNAPL Remediation by Mobilization Using Blend of Anionic Surfactant in Combination with Brine. S.R. Lenschow, A.G. Christensen, M.M. Mygind, A.M. Lindof, P.C. de Blanc, and K. Kostarelos.Soren R. Lenschow (NIRAS A/S/Denmark)

* Steam On: Challenges Encountered during the Implementation of the World’s Largest Thermal Remediation. S. Nielsen, D. Phelan, D. Macone, S. Colagross, G. Heron, S. Pearson, D. Smallbeck, S. Beadle, and D. Fisher.Steffen Griepke Nielsen (TerraTherm, Inc./USA)

Surfactant-Enhanced Aquifer Remediation of a Low-Permeability Unit Containing Light, Nonaqueous-Phase Liquid. R.L. Bragg and B.C. Rudd.Luke Bragg (Terracon Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Thermally-Enhanced, Multiphase Extraction for NAPL Recovery. L. Stauch, J. Brink, D. Seiler, and M. Roberts.Lynette Stauch (TRS Group, Inc./USA)

Use of a Mobile DNAPL Recovery Unit to Remove DNAPL from a Source Area. M.L. Schmidt, A.M. Heitger, and T. Doll.Martin L. Schmidt (AECOM/USA)

E4. Low-Threat Management and Closure of Complex Petroleum SitesPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChair: Curtis Stanley (Shell Global Solutions)

* Evaluation of Remedial Approaches for Heavy Hydrocarbons at Oil-Production Facilities. T.J. Simpkin and V. Ucar.Tom Simpkin (CH2M HILL/USA)

LNAPL Decision-Making Using a 3D-UVOST Visualization and LNAPL Mobility Assessment. R.A. Schoepke, A.M. Riffel, and M. Sweetenham.Allison M. Riffel (Trihydro Corporation/USA)

LNAPL Longevity. T. Sale, A. Skinner, E. Emerson, C. Newell, P. Kulkarni, K. Piontek, and S. Garg.Tom Sale (Colorado State University/USA)

The Los Angeles Light Nonaqueous-Phase Liquid (LNAPL) Recoverability Study. C.J. Newell, P.R. Kulkarni, and M. Wang.Charles J. Newell (GSI Environmental, Inc./USA)

A Simple Spreadsheet Model to Simulate the Natural Attenuation of Residual NAPL-Phase Hydrocarbons in the Subsurface. J.T. Wilson, I. Hers, and P. Jourabchi.John Wilson (Scissortail Environmental Solutions, LLC/USA)

* Sustainable Bioremediation of a Legacy Hydrocarbon Plume Using Biostimulation. J.M. McBeth, K. Bradshaw, J. Grosskleg, T. Carlson, W. Xiong, C. Mathies, M. Pachal, and R. Bechard.Joyce M. McBeth (Canadian Light Source/Canada)

Vulnerability Analysis of Institutional Controls to Land Activity and Use at Complex Petroleum Sites. B. Wenzlau.Bob Wenzlau (Terradex, Inc./USA)

E5. Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD)Platforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Mark Lyverse (Chevron Energy Technology Company)Gary P. Wealthall (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.)

Assessment of Natural Source Zone Depletion Rates Using Carbon Dioxide Efflux Measurements at a Refinery Site. P. Jourabchi, I. Hers, A. Wozney, H. Hopkins, and U. Mayer.Parisa Jourabchi (Golder Associates/Canada)


48

* Evaluation of Bioenhanced Dissolution and Volatilization for Bemidji Crude Oil Spill. D.R. Burris.David Burris (Integrated Science & Technology, Inc./USA)

* Field Comparison of NSZD Assessment Methods: Gradient Method and Two CO2 Flux Methods. S. Gaito, A. Pennington, J. Smith, H. Hopkin, and M. Malander.Steven Gaito (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* Natural Source Zone Depletion Rates from Subsurface Temperature Data: A Quantitative Analysis. S. Gaito, A. Pennington, J. Smith, and J. LaChance.Steven Gaito (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* A Paradigm Shift in Methods to Monitor Petroleum Natural Attenuation. T. Palaia.Tom Palaia (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Quantification of Natural Source Zone Depletion Using CO2 Flux Methods to Enhance LNAPL Conceptual Site Models. D.T. de Courcy-Bower and J. Zimbron.David De Courcy Bower (ERM/USA)

Quantifying Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD) Rates Using Four Different Methods at an LNAPL Site. S. Garg, C. Newell, P. Kulkarni, T. Sale, N. Platt, and J. Sanks.Sanjay Garg (Shell Global Solutions (US), Inc./USA)

Rapid Approach to Evaluate NSZD at LNAPL Sites. G.T. Ririe and R.E. Sweeney.G. Todd Ririe (BP/USA)

* Small Purge Method for Sampling Vapor from Monitoring Wells with Application to PVI and NSZD. R.E. Sweeney and T. Ririe.Robert Sweeney (E&P Geochemistry/USA)

Thermal Enhancements to Natural Source Zone Depletion Rates of Petroleum in Soils. J. Zimbron.Julio Zimbron (Colorado State University/USA)

Thermal Monitoring of Natural Source Zone Depletion Rates. T. Sale, E. Stockwell, C. Newell, and K. Piontek.Tom Sale (Colorado State University/USA)

* Updated Comparison of Natural Source Zone Depletion and Active Remediation. T. Palaia.Tom Palaia (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Using Radiocarbon-CO2 to Assess the Utility of CO2 as a Proxy for Bioremediation Effectiveness. D. Risk, J. Egan, J. Grosskleg, K. Bradshaw, T. Carlson, C. Mathies, M. Pachal, and R. Bechard.David Risk (St. Francis Xavier University/Canada)

E6. PhytoremediationPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Joel G. Burken (Missouri University of Science & Technology) Tesema Chekol (Battelle)

Applied Phytoscreening for Locating Hot Spots and Source Areas with Chlorinated Solvents. M. Algreen and S.R. Petersen.Mette Algreen (Orbicon A/S/Denmark)

* Development of a Hybrid Poplar Phytoremediation Program for Trichloroethene at an Arid, Fractured Bedrock Site. D. Rowe, E. Pearson, C. Serlin, C. Cohu, and J. Freeman.Devon Rowe (Ramboll Environ/USA)

* Effect of Tree Stresses at a Deep-Rooted Phytoremediation Site Planted with Salix alba. P.K. Juriasingani, N.F. Blomgren, A.A. Pringle, and E.L. McCoy.Purshotam Juriasingani (AECOM/USA)

* Engineered Phytoremediation as a Component of Remedial Strategies to Address CCl4-, TCE-, and/or 1,4-Dioxane-Contaminated Groundwater at Four Geographically Diverse Sites in the Eastern U.S. E.G. Gatliff, P.J. Linton, B.E. Smith, D.J. Riddle, and P.R. Thomas.Edward G. Gatliff (Applied Natural Science, Inc./USA)

* Indicator Plant Geobotany: A Precursor to Successful Phytoremediation. B.J. Harding and S. Pittenger.Barry Harding (AECOM Technical Services, Inc./USA)

Management of Ethylene Dichloride (EDC)-Contaminated Groundwater. N. Hambali, S. Ariffin, A.R. Ramli, M.N. Ismail, and F. Rahim.Nuraini Hambali (PETRONAS/Malaysia)

Phyto-Assisted Remediation of a Creosote-Contaminated Site: A Long-Term Study. M.A. Widdowson, B.J. Harding, and J.T. Novak.Mark Widdowson (Virginia Tech/USA)

Phytoforensic Methods for Nonvolatile, Inorganic Contaminants: Field and Laboratory Testing of Perchlorate. J.G. Burken, M.A. Limmer, D.M. West, R. Mu, Y. Yuan, and H. Shi.Joel G. Burken (Missouri University of Science & Technology/USA)

* Phytomonitoring: In Planta SPME Methods for Long-Term Monitoring of Chlorinated Solvents in Trees over 4 Years. M.A. Limmer, J.G. Burken, A.J. Holmes, and J.L. Wilson.Joel G. Burken (Missouri University of Science & Technology/USA)


49* = poster presentations

* Phytoremediation Complements Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation for Optimized Groundwater Remediation. D. Graves, D. Wanty, M. Miller, L. Leonard, T. McNabb, and J. Fears.Duane Graves (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Phytoscreening of HCH Bioaccumulation for a Groundwater Contamination Survey. V. Antos, P. Hrabak, M. Cernik, J. Machackova, P. Kvapil, and I. Supikova.Pavel Hrabak (Technical Universitu of Liberec/Czech Republic)

* Remediation of Shallow Groundwater Impacted with Chlorinated Ethenes Utilizing an Engineered Wetland. M. Wojciechowski, D. Tsao, and N.E. Sauer.Nancy E. Sauer (AECOM/USA)

Treatment of Benzene Contamination Using Rhizoremediation at a Petrochemical Facility in Brazil. F. Coelho.Flavio Coelho (ERM Brasil Ltda./Brazil)

Using Tree Core Sampling to Recharacterize Chlorinated Solvent Groundwater Plumes at Phytoremediation Sites. J.G. Burken, M.A. Limmer, C. Cellucci, and M. Meyer.Carlotta Cellucci (U.S. Navy/USA)

E7. Bioavailability of Contaminants in SoilPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Barrie Selcoe (CH2M HILL) Claudio Sorrentino (California Department of Toxic Substances Control)

Arsenic Bioavailability and Bioaccessibility in Hawaii Soils. W. Cutler, A. Juhasz, E. Smith, and J. Peard.William Cutler (Integral Consulting, Inc./USA)

Bioavailability-Based Remediation Goals for Arsenic in Soil. U. Vedagiri, H. Anderson, C. Schwach, H. Loso, and S. Dressler.Usha Vedagiri (AECOM/USA)

ITRC’s Upcoming Guidance on Bioavailability in Contaminated Soil. B. Selcoe, C. Sorrentino, and K. Durant.Barrie Selcoe (CH2M HILL/USA)

Metals Speciation and Bioavailability in Sediments of an Urban-Industrial Waterway. J.C. Goin and D. Vlassopoulos.Jessica Goin (Anchor QEA, LLC/USA)

* Strategies to Quantify and Decrease Mercury Bioavailability and Methylation Potential in the Aquatic Environment. H. Hsu-Kim, C. Johnson, U. Ndu, M.A. Deshusses, and D.A. Elias.Heileen Hsu-Kim (Duke University/USA)

E8. Coal Ash Facility RestorationPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChair: Andrew Bittner (Gradient Corporation)

* Biogeochemical Conversion of Calcium Sulfite into Gypsum in Flue-Gas Desulfurization Waste. D. Graves, R. White, B. Wallace, L. Chen, and J. Smith.Duane Graves (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

Framework for Evaluating Coal Ash Surface-Impoundment Closure Options. K. Herman, A.S. Lewis, A.B. Bittner, E.M. Dube, C.M. Long, B.R. Hensel, and K.J. Ladwig.Kurt Herman (Gradient Corporation/USA)

Geochemical Controls on Arsenic, Gross Alpha, and Ra-226/Ra-228 in Groundwater at a Coal-Fired Power Plant. M. Lodato, M. Gozdor, and M. Wissler.Michael Lodato (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Groundwater Assessment Framework to Evaluate Relative Impacts of Surface Impoundment Closure Options. A. Bittner, J. Kondziolka, A. Lewis, B. Hensel, and K. Ladwig.Andrew Bittner (Gradient Corporation/USA)

Hydrogeology and Groundwater Quality Near a Fly-Ash Impoundment and Dam. B.M. Sass, A.J. Kreinberg, M.R. Leedy, and J.T. Massey-Norton.Bruce M. Sass (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

State-of-the-Practice: Coal Ash Disposal. A. Bittner.Andrew Bittner (Gradient Corporation/USA)

E9. Landfill ManagementPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChair: Christopher Glenn (Langan Treadwell Rollo)

* Biodegradation of Chlorinated VOCs at a Landfill Site Promoted by Electron-Donor Release from Refuse. J. Ludlow, C. Glenn, E. Strake, M. Kavanaugh, R. Cheung, and E. Rasa.Jeffrey F. Ludlow (Langan Treadwell Rollo/USA)

Design Considerations for Geosynthetics in Cover Systems over Mine-Waste Rock and Tailings. G. Corcoran, C. Athanassopolous, and R. Oliver.Greg Corcoran (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

Energy Production from Remediation of Landfill Gas (LFG) Migration from an Old Landfill. J.K. Holm, E.T. Paamand, and T.B. Nielsen.Eskild Thulani Paamand (GEO/Denmark)

A Holistic Approach to Site Assessment of Former Landfill and Sustainable Remediation. J.M. Oakeshott.Jane Oakeshott (ERM/United Kingdom)

50

Landfill Gas Extraction System Design Considerations: Landfill Post-Closure Development Project. J. Ludlow, O. Uppal, S. Abrams, and G. Corcoran.Jeffrey F. Ludlow (Langan Treadwell Rollo/USA)

A Sustainable, Cost-Effective, Exposure-Based Remedial Approach for Arsenic in Sediment at the Final Stages of a Superfund Landfill Closure. N.W. Hagelin and J.B. Rand.Nathan W. Hagelin (Amec Foster Wheeler, Inc./USA)

* Sustainable Leachate Treatment to Near Drinking Water Quality. K.D. Torrens.Kevin D. Torrens (Brown and Caldwell/USA)

* Using Horizontal Extraction Wells to Contain Chlorinated Compounds near Landfills. W.G. Soukup, W.J. Lee, and M.J. Sequino.William G. Soukup (Cornerstone Environmental Group, LLC/USA)

F1. 1,4-DioxanePlatforms Monday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Shaily Mahendra (UCLA) Daniel W. Oberle (TRS Group)

* 1,4 Dioxane/HVOCS Removal in Groundwater to MCLs by AS/Peroxide-coated Microbubble Ozone at a Southern Florida Site. W.B. Kerfoot and R. Pryor.William B. Kerfoot (Kerfoot Technologies, Inc./USA)

* 1,4-Dioxane Removal in Landfill Leachate by Bioreactors. C. Zhou, Y. Tang, B. Petty, and M. Schultheis.Chao Zhou (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

* 1,4-Dioxane Source Characterization with High-Resolution Saturated Soil Sampling. P.J. Curry, J.A. Quinnan, N.R.H. Welty, W.M. Davis, and D. Favero.Patrick Curry (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* Aerobic Cometabolism of 1,4-dioxane and Chlorinated Solvent Mixtures by Isobutane-Utilizing Microorganisms. H.M. Rolston, M.F. Azizian, L. Semprini, and M.R. Hyman.Hannah Rolston (Oregon State University/USA)

Bioaugmentation to Enhance Biodegradation of 1,4-Dioxane. R. Mora, H. Holbrook, D. Chiang, S. Mahendra, P. Gedalanga, S. Dworatzek, A. Bodour, and R.H. Anderson.Rebecca Mora (AECOM/USA)

* Bioaugmented Granular Activated Carbon Treatment of 1,4-Dioxane and CVOCs. M.A. Myers, P. Pornwongthong, P.B. Gedalanga, and S. Mahendra.Michelle Myers (UCLA/USA)

Bioprocesses for Simultaneously Removing Hexavalent Chromium and 1,4-Dioxane. S. Zhang, P. Gedalanga, S. Guo, and S. Mahendra.Shu Zhang (UCLA/USA)

* Cometabolic Biodegradation of Commingled 1,4-Dioxane and Chlorinated Solvent Plumes. B. Yuncu, J.L. Keener, R.C. Borden, S.D. Richardson, K.C. Glover, and A. Bodour.Bilgen Yuncu (Solutions-IES, Inc./USA)

* Cometabolic Bioremediation of 1,4-Dioxane. C. Wiseman, R. Pratt, G.M. Birk, and C.R. Lange.Randy Pratt (GSI Water Solutions, Inc./USA)

Evaluation of ALDH and DXMO as Biomarkers for 1,4-Dioxane Biodegradation in an Impacted Aquifer. P. Gedalanga, S. Zhang, M. Myers, S. Mahendra, R. Mora, D. Chiang, B. Baldwin, and D. Ogles.Phillip Gedalanga (University of California, Los Angeles/USA)

* Field Demonstration of Vadose 1,4-Dioxane Remediation by Extreme Soil Vapor Extraction (XSVE). R. Hinchee, D. Burris, K. Touchi, and P. Dahlen.Robert Hinchee (Integrated Science & Technology, Inc./USA)

Field Implementation of Natural Mineral Activation of Sodium Persulfate for 1,4 Dioxane Treatment. S. Conkle, J. Hatton, and J. Strunk.Sarah Conkle (CH2M HILL/USA)

High-Resolution Site Characterization of 1,4 Dioxane Sites Using a New On-Site, Real-Time Analysis. W.M. Davis, C.P. Antworth, C.A. Horrell, J. Wright, and P. Curry.William M. Davis (Triad Environmental Solutions, Inc./USA)

* In Situ Groundwater Remediation of a 1,4-Dioxane/Vinyl Chloride Mixed Plume Downgradient of a Municipal Landfill. P.J. McCall, A.D. Rauss, M. Naud, A. Warrow, and L. Kinsman.Patti J. McCall (Tetra Tech, Inc./USA)

* Laboratory Testing to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Natural Mineral-Activated Sodium Persulfate for Treating 1,4-Dioxane. D.R.V. Berggren and J. Hatton.Dusty R.V. Berggren (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Managing High Iron Levels While Removing 1,4-Dioxane from Groundwater. D.S. Samorano, R.C. Luhrs, S.E. Woodard, and A.G. Bishop.Steven E. Woodard (ECT/USA)

Remediation of 1,4-Dioxane via Electrical Resistance Heating. E. Crownover and D.L. Schroder.Emily Crownover (TRS Group, Inc./USA)

* The Search for 1,4-Dioxane Biodegradation in the Field. C. Bell and M. Heintz.Caitlin Bell (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

Simultaneous Degradation of Trichloroethylene, Tetrachloroethylene, and 1,4-Dioxane by a Microbial-Driven Fenton Reaction. R. Sekar, M. Taillefert, and T.J. DiChristina.Thomas DiChristina (Georgia Institute of Technology/USA)


51

* Treatment Approach for 1,4-Dioxane in Confined Aquifers. R. Schoepke, F.J. Krembs, G.E. Mathes, and C. Hiegel.Friedrich J. Krembs (Trihydro Corporation/USA)

* Using Aerobic, Cometabolic 1,4-Dioxane Biodegradation and Groundwater Recirculation toTreat 1,4-Dioxane and Co-Contaminants in a Dilute Plume. M.-Y. Chu, P. Bennett, M. Dolan, M. Hyman, R. Anderson, A. Bodour, and A. Peacock.Min-Ying Jacob Chu (Haley & Aldrich, Inc./USA)

F2. Perfluorinated Compounds—Characterization and AnalysisPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: William DiGuiseppi (CH2M HILL) Jennifer A. Field (Oregon State University)

* Assessment of PFAS in Soil and Groundwater: New Analytical Technologies for Comprehensive Analysis of PFAS Including Precursors. I. Ross, J. Burdick, T. Pancras, A. Horneman, C.E. Riis, A.G. Christensen, J. Bard, and J. Quinnan.Ian Ross (ARCADIS/United Kingdom)

* A Case Study of Perfluoroalkyl or Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) Contamination at Former Wurtsmith Air Force Base (WAFB). D. Bogdan, R. Delaney, and D.J. Corsi.Dorin Bogdan (AECOM/USA)

* The Determination of Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids (PFAAs): Answers to Frequently Asked Questions. T. Obal, A. Robinson, and P. Henige.Terry Obal (Maxxam Analytics/Canada)

Development and Testing of an Analytical Method for Real Time Measurement of Polyfluoroalkyl and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). R.A. Deeb, A. Haghani, A. Eaton, and J. Chambon.Rula Anselmo Deeb (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Effect of the Selection and Use of Internal Standards on the Accuracy of PFAS Data. M.M. Maier, A. Clarke, A.N. Patterson, B. Roberts, and E. Schneider.Allison Clarke (Vista Analytical/USA)

* Evaluating Perfluoroalkyl Substances: A Test of Quality Systems. A. Bernhardt, S. Gormley, and M. Bevier.Ann Bernhardt (Amec Foster Wheeler, Inc./USA)

* Evaluation of Different Methods for Extraction of Perfluoroalkyl Substances from Soil and Sediment: Results from a Limited Study. S. Gormley, A. Bernhardt, M. Bevier, M. Maier, A. Clarke, B. Roberts, E. Schneider, and A. Patterson.Sean F. Gormley (Amec Foster Wheeler, Inc./USA)

Is Everything Okie Dokie at Oakey? Assessment and Strategic Management of Australia’s Longest PFOS Groundwater Plume. R. Casson, D. Woodward, and D. Chaing.Rachael Casson (AECOM/Australia)

A Low-Cost, Rapid-Screening Fluorine Assay for Sites Impacted with Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. G. Peaslee, E. Ritter, P. Boumgarden, B. DiGuiseppi, and R. Delaney.Evelyn Ritter (UMP Analytical, LLC/USA)

* Perfluoroalkyl or Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) Distribution in Wildlife at Former Wurtsmith Air Force Base (WAFB). R. Delaney, D. Bogdan, and D.J. Corsi.Robert Delaney (Michigan DEQ/USA)

Tactical PFC Investigation Approaches and Statistical Analysis of Results. M. Helton, R. Singer, and S. Gormley.Sean F. Gormley (Amec Foster Wheeler, Inc./USA)

Tools for Characterization of Impacts from Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. W.H. DiGuiseppi and J.W. Hatton.William DiGuiseppi (CH2M HILL/USA)

Water Quality Standards for Perfluoroalkyl Compounds: Cross Roads between Regulatory Toxicology and Remedy Selection. P.E. Goodrum, J. Anderson, and A. Tsitonaki.Philip E. Goodrum (Integral Consulting, Inc./USA)

F3. Perfluorinated Compounds—RemediationPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Ramona Darlington (Battelle) Ian Ross (ARCADIS U.S., Inc.)

* An Aluminum Hydroxide Formulation Outperforms Activated Carbon in Binding Shorter Chain Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFAS). S. Hüttmann, E. Hümpel, R.J. Stewart, C.H. Lawrence, and J. Kirk.Richard Stewart (Ziltek Pty. Ltd./Australia)

* Biodegradation of Fluorinated Surfactants—Polyfluoroalkyl Phosphates (PAPs)—by Activated Sludge. M. Lewis, M. Kim, J. Liu, N. Wang, and K.H. Chu.Kung-Hui (Bella) Chu (Texas A&M University/USA)

* Chemical Oxidation of Perfluorooctanoic Acid in Groundwater Using Activated Persulfate. P. Yin and X. Song.Xin Song (Chinese Academy of Sciences/China)

* Demonstration of Thermal Treatment of Per- and Polyflouroalkyl Substances with a Mass Balance Approach to Verification. J. Gamlin, B. Diguiseppi, J. Hatton, C. Higgins, S. Roberts, and M. Javaherian.Jeff Gamlin (CH2M HILL/USA)


52

Destruction of PFOS in Groundwater: A New In Situ Remediation Technology for Per/Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances. M. Ahmad, J. Burdick, T. Pancras, A. Horneman, C.E. Riis, A.G. Christensen, J. Bard, and I. Ross.Mushtaque Ahmad (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* Effectiveness of Persulfate Oxidation for Removal and Regeneration of Perfluoroalkyl-Contaminated Sorbed Granular Activated Carbon. N. Kunte, D. Siriwardena, M.L. Crimi, T. Holsen, and C. Bellona.Nageshrao Kunte (Clarkson University/USA)

* Fungal Transformation of 6:2 Fluorotelomer Alcohol (6:2 FTOH): Peroxidases versus P450 Oxygenases. N. Tseng, R. Deeb, and S. Mahendra.Nancy S. Tseng (University of California, Los Angeles/USA)

* In Situ Treatment Train for Remediation of Perfluoroalkyl-Contaminated Groundwater: In Situ Chemical Oxidation of Sorbed Contaminants (ISCO-SC). D. Siriwardena, N. Kunte, M. Crimi, T. Holsen, and C. Bellona.Dinusha Siriwardena (Clarkson University/USA)

Innovative Technical Approaches to Remediation of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. W.H. DiGuiseppi and J.W. Hatton.William DiGuiseppi (CH2M HILL/USA)

* A Novel Adsorption Product for the Treatment of Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFAS) in Wastewater from Airport Fire-Training Grounds. N. Marquez, R. Stewart, C. Lawrence, and J. Kirk.Nick Marquez (Beca/Australia)

Observations from Treatability-Testing Oxidation of an Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Agent in Soil Microcosms. D. Berggren, J. Hatton, J. Field, and K. Barzan-Hanson.Dusty R.V. Berggren (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Remediation of Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFAS) with OxyZone®, a Multioxidant Blend. R.G. Ball, A.T. Moore, T.B. Boving, and D. Eberle.Raymond G. Ball (EnChem Engineering, Inc./USA)

* The Role of Iron in the Fate and Transport and Remediation of Perfluoroalkyl Substances. P.J. Storch, S.C. Haskins, and A. Pettingell-Ward.Peter Storch (EHS Support/Australia)

Sonochemical Degradation of Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Using Megahertz-Frequency Sound Field. L. Rodriguez-Freire, N. Fernandez, S. Snyder, R. Sierra-Alvarez, and M. Keswani.Manish Keswani (University of Arizona/USA)

Sustainable Removal of Poly- and Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFASs) from Groundwater Using Synthetic Media. N.W. Hagelin, B. Newman, S.E. Woodard, and M. Nickelsen.Steven E. Woodard (ECT/USA)

* Treating Firefighting Foam Contaminants. D. Alden, G.M. Birk, and R.J. Stewart.David Alden (Tersus Environmental, LLC/USA)

* Treatment of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Groundwater. G.M. Birk and D. Alden.Gary Birk (Tersus Environmental, LLC/USA)

Treatment of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances in U.S. Water Treatment Systems. T.D. Appleman.Tim Appleman (U.S. Navy/USA)

F4. Emerging ContaminantsPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Tim Appleman (U.S. Navy) Alison Cupples (Michigan State University)

Advancing the Understanding of 1,2,3-TCP Remediation in Groundwater via Biological Reduction. M. Schmitt, E. Suchomel, S. Dworatzek, and J. Webb.Melissa Schmitt (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Biodegradation of Nonylphenol Diethoxylate in Lab-Scale Anaerobic Digesters. F.K. Murdoch and F.D. Sanin.Fadime Kara Murdoch (Middle East Technical University/Turkey)

* The Biodegradation of the Pharmaceutical Carbamazepine in Two Soils under a Range of Conditions. J.-R. Thelusmond, A. Cupples, and T. Strathmann.Jean-Rene Thelusmond (Michigan State University/USA)

* Can a PCB-Dechlorinating Specie-Debrominate Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers in Sediment Microcosms? H. Demirtepe and I. Imamoglu.Hale Demirtepe (Middle East Technical University/Turkey)

* Do Emerging Contaminants Transfer from Soil to Lettuce? A. Mastorgio, S. Saponaro, and E. Sezenna.Andrea Mastorgio (Politecnico di Milano—DICA/Italy)

* Enhanced Biodegradation of Bisphenol A Using Vault Nanoparticles Packaged with Enzymes. M. Wang, S. Mahendra, D. Abad, V.A. Kickhoefer, and L.H. Rome.Meng Wang (UCLA/USA)

Identification of Chemicals of Emerging Concern and Assessment of Innovative Remediation Approaches. S. Chattopadhyay and A. Ayyaswami.Sandip Chattopadhyay (Tetra Tech, Inc./USA)

* Modeling Uptake of an Emerging Contaminant from Environmental Waters Using Zeolite Beta. S.A. Grieco and B.V. Ramarao.Scott Grieco (OBG/USA)


53

Reactive Gas Process for Treatment of 1,2,3-TCP in Vadose Zone Soils. C.G. Coyle, V.F. Medina, and S.A. Waisner.Charles G. Coyle (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/USA)

* Sono-Electro-Fenton Degradation of 4-Chlorophenol in Aqueous Media. R. Nazari, L. Rajic, and A. Alshawabkeh.Roya Nazari (Northeastern University/USA)

There’s Something in the Water: Evaluation of Permanganate and Oxidant Mixtures for Removal of Pharmaceuticals and Endocrine Disrupters. P.J. Dugan and R. Dawson.Pamela Dugan (Carus Corporation/USA)

F5. EnergeticsPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Les Clarke (Battelle) Paul B. Hatzinger (CB&I Federal Services)

Feasibility of Bioaugmentation for Treatment of RDX-Contaminated Groundwater. F.H. Crocker, M.M. Michalsen, K.J. Indest, C.M. Jung, M.E. Fuller, P.B. Hatzinger, J. Istok, and S.A. Hammett.Fiona Crocker (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/USA)

* Improved Explosive Detoxification with Starch Addition by Novel Nitrogen-Fixing Microbial Consortia. M.I. Khan, S.H. Kim, and J.H. Park.Muhammad Imran Khan (Yonsei University/South Korea)

* In Situ Thermal Treatment of Contaminated Soil with Explosives (DNT and TNCB). H. Saadaoui and J. Haemers.Jan Haemers (TPS TECH/Belgium)

* ISCR Remediation of DNT and Daughter Product DAT in Fractured Bedrock. S.M. Borchert, M. Boekenhauer, and J. Cibrik.Susanne M. Borchert (CH2M HILL/USA)

Linking Phylogeny and Function in RDX-Degrading Communities from Groundwater and Sediment from Two Naval Sites. F. Paes and A. M. Cupples.Alison Cupples (Michigan State University/USA)

Natural Attenuation of Munitions Constituents on Training Ranges: Conceptual Model Development. R.C. Borden, B. Yuncu, and J. Won.Robert C. Borden (Solutions-IES, Inc./USA)

* Optimization of Remedial Project to Reduce Nitroaromatics in Groundwater. S.T. Downey and R.L. Meadows.Steven Downey (CB&I Federal Services, LLC/USA)

* Pilot-Scale Comparison of Eight Biotreatment Approaches for Soil Containing TNT and DNT. A. Seech, E. Meeks, M. Wacksman, and S. Larew.Alan G. Seech (PeroxyChem, LLC/USA)

* Potential of Vitamin C for Remediating Nitrobenzene Contamination. Y.T. Lin, C. Liang, and J.W. Shiu.Ya-Ting Lin (Chung Yuan Christian University/Taiwan)

Predicting the Environmental Fate and Effects of New, Insensitive Munitions Compounds. A.J. Salter-Blanc, P.G. Tratnyek, M.A. Lyon, D.M. Di Toro, E.J. Weber, and B.E. Johnson.Alexandra J. Salter-Blanc (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Utilizing Local Resources for Phased Sustainable Treatment of Perchlorate-Contaminated Soil and Groundwater. K.A. Morris.Kevin Morris (ERM/USA)

F6. Case Studies: Evaluating GSR MetricsPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Paul Brandt Butler (AECOM)Lynn Tucker (Ford Motor Company)

ASTM Greener Cleanups Application: A Coast-to-Coast Review. D. Goldblum, J. Simon, and C. Pachon.Deborah Goldblum (U.S. EPA/USA)

* Battelle Tool for Evaluating Social Aspects of Sustainable Remediation. S. Moore, R. Sirabian, and C. Scala.Sam Moore (Battelle/USA)

Beneficial Reuse as a Green and Sustainable Remediation: Success Stories and Lessons Learned from Multiple Projects. K. McCarty and S. Brauner.Steve Brauner (Integral Consulting, Inc./USA)

Comparative Screening-Level Life Cycle Assessment of Remediation Alternatives for a Small Site. J. Sullivan, M. Metzger, L. Segroves, S. Ramsden, and N. Czoschke.Julie Sullivan (Barr Engineering Company/USA)

Development and Evaluation of GSR Metrics for a Shooting Range Remediation. J.D. McNew and F.T. Barranco.Jason McNew (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc./USA)

* A Green and Sustainable Remediation Success Story: Reducing Greenhouse Gas Production at Travis Air Force Base. L. Pratt, D. Berwick, J. Gamlin, G. Anderson, and L. Duke.Jeff Gamlin (CH2M HILL/USA)


54

* GSR Methods for Investigation and Remediation of a Large VOC Plume. T. Kinney, M. Coram, and C. Meincke.Thomas M. Kinney (GHD Services, Inc./USA)

Integrating the Social Element in Remedial Decision-Making: State of the Practice and Way Forward (A SURF Technical Initiative). M.A. Harclerode, D.R. Risdale, D. Darmendrail, P. Bardos, F. Alexandrescu, P. Nathanail, and SURF TI Team.Melissa Harclerode (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

* Sustainability at ISS Projects. P.R. Lear.Paul Lear (Envirocon, Inc./USA)

Using In Situ Bioremediation and Phytoremediation to Treat Large Chlorinated Solvent Plumes: A Case Study of Green and Sustainable Remediation. D. Hou, D. Griffiths, D. Brown, L. McGlochlin, M. Schulman, and K. Garon.Deyi Hou (Parsons Corp./USA)

Value Engineering and Cost-Reduction Measures Lead to Greener Cleanup. C. Rockwell and P. Nangeroni.Cathy Rockwell (Woodard & Curran/USA)

F7. Incorporating Sustainability to Develop, Advance, and Improve Remediation TechnologiesPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChair: Patrick Hsieh (Amec Foster Wheeler)

Accelerating and Greening Remediation at a Large Military Installation. G.A. Colgan and D.C. Downey.Gary Colgan (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Adaptation and Resilience: New Considerations for Environmental Remediation in an Era of Climate Change. S. O’Connell and D. Hou.Shannon O’Connell (Parsons Corp./USA)

Assessing the Viability of Short-Chain Fatty Acids for Enhanced DNAPL Source Zone Bioremediation. N.L. Cápiro, D.F. Sylvia, E.X. Bonilla, L.S. Hiller, T.R. Duhl, and K.D. Pennell.Natalie Capiro (Tufts University/USA)

Carbon Footprint Assessment of ISCO Remediation and Pump-and-Treat Containment in Fractured Sandstone. R. Meinke, K. Schnell, S. Brendel, and C. Gandy.Robert Meinke (ERM/Germany)

Hot and Cold: Comparing Vapor-Phase Mass Removal of Chlorinated Compounds in Extreme Weather Environments. R. Belcher, G. Gordon, C. Winell, and H. Amini.Ryan T. Belcher (Amec Foster Wheeler, Inc./USA)

F8. Reusing and Revitalizing Contaminated SitesPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Bella Bakrania (O’Brien & Gere) L. Maile Smith (Northgate Environmental Management, Inc.)

A 63-Acre Distressed Property Makeover: Phased and Combined In Situ Thermal/Chemox Remediation Approach. G.A. Angyal, S.T. Pernick, and J.H. Levesque.Jeffrey Levesque (OBG/USA)

Brownfields Redevelopment: The Path to Regulatory Closure at a Complex Site. J. Yeager, J. Connolly, and D.G. Larson.Jessica Yeager (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Design of an Active Vapor Mitigation System to Allow Residential Reuse of a Multistory Historical Building with a Challenging Foundation Plan. S.C. Crawford and D. Keane.Scott Crawford (XDD Environmental, LLC/USA)

Early Stakeholder Engagement and End-Use Visioning Lead to Successful Remediation and Redevelopment at a Complex Superfund Site. C. Leary, B. Kubiak, D. Crawford, J. Reymond, C. Killoren, and J. McAuliffe.Clare Leary (OBG/USA)

* Online Tool to Stimulate the Use of Innovative Remediation Techniques in the Brussels Capital Region. B. Lemaire, S. El Fadili, J.P. Janssens, K. Enkels, W. Gevaerts, and K. Van Geert.Koen Enkels (ARCADIS/Belgium)

The Remediation, Redevelopment, and Revitalization of Treasure Island. C. Glenn, R. Beck, and D. Shipman.Christopher Glenn (Langan Treadwell Rollo/USA)

* Repurposing Pharmaceutical Facilities to Create Productive Assets. R. Patullo.Robert Patullo (OBG/USA)

* Strategic Remedial Design to Facilitate Multiuse Redevelopment Both Now and in the Future. T. Nowlan and M. Kozar.Tom Nowlan (OBG/USA)


55

* Green and Sustainable Shoreline Restoration of a Coastal Tidal Zone Superfund Landfill to Protect Shoreline Armoring and Reduce Future Repairs. J.R. Dickson, R. Stenson, C. Winkeljohn, and A. Lonergan.James R. Dickson (CTI and Associates, Inc./USA)

Integrating Ecosystem Services in the Sustainability Evaluation Process for Remedial Activities. P. Lal, A. Ranjan, and M. Harclerode.Pankaj Lal (Montclair State University/USA)

Reducing the Footprint of Environmental Remediation Using the EcoVal™ Screening Tool. S.A. Hines, D.J. Chappie, and H.J. Stone.Stephanie Hines (Battelle/USA)

* A Simple Method to Address Ecological Considerations in Green and Sustainable Remediation Studies. J. Weier and T. Simpkin.Jonathon Weier (CH2M HILL/USA)

G1. Innovations in In Situ Chemical Oxidation (ISCO) RemediationPlatforms Monday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Prasad K. Kakarla (In-Situ Oxidative Technologies [ISOTEC]) Brant Smith (PeroxyChem, LLC)

* Application of Iron-Activated Persulfate to Address a Large Dissolved-Phase Ethanol Plume: Design Strategy and Application. R.S. Srirangam, B. Smith, and R. Wilkinson.Ravikumar Srirangam (PeroxyChem, LLC/USA)

* Bench-Scale Testing of the Use of Cementing Agents to Activate Sodium Persulfate to Combine ISCO & ISS. J. Hudson and D.P. Cassidy.Jeffrey Hudson (Western Michigan University/USA)

* Combination Persulfate Activated by Modified Fenton’s Reagent Treatment of Subslab Soil and Groundwater Utilizing Direct-Push Technology. T. Musser, P. Kakarla, M. Temple, M. Ratner, S. Brooks, and S. Collins.Michael Temple (In-Situ Oxidative Technologies, Inc. [ISOTEC]/USA)

Combining Chemical Oxidation, Stabilization, and Anaerobic Bioremediation in a Single Application to Reduce Contaminant Mass and Leachability in Soil. D.P. Cassidy, V.J. Srivastava, F.J. Dombrowski, and J.W. Lingle.Daniel P. Cassidy (Western Michigan University/USA)

Comparative Efficacy of Two Passive-ISCO Remedial Approaches. T. Pac, K. Brody, K. King, D. Wanty, and M. Sylvester.Timothy Pac (ERM/USA)


F9. Groundwater Conservation and Reuse for Sustainable Remediation and RedevelopmentPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Melissa Harclerode (CDM Smith, Inc.)Richard Wice (Tetra Tech, Inc.)

Containment and Remediation of Perchlorate and Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compounds in the Saugus Aquifer (Bermite Facility, Santa Clarita, California). H. Amini.Hassan Amini (Amec Foster Wheeler, Inc./USA)

* Ecological Restoration as a Component of Sustainable Soil and Groundwater Remediation at a Contaminated Site. K. Tipton and M. Laselva.Karina J. Tipton (Brown and Caldwell/USA)

Groundwater Remediation Case Study Highlighting Cost Efficiency and Sustainability. M. Carver, M. Gertz, and R. Konkowski.Marc Carver (ERM/USA)

Strategic Sequencing of Combined Remedies for Sustainable Water Conservation. C. Rockwell, M. Apfelbaum, and P. Nangeroni.Cathy Rockwell (Woodard & Curran/USA)

F10. Methods and Tools for Incorporating Ecological Considerations into GSRPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Paul Favara (CH2M HILL) Carlos Pachon (U.S. EPA)

* Assessment of the Most Sustainable “Management Scenario” for an Old Pesticide Dumpsite. M. Bondgaard, A. Melvej, K. Rüegg, B. Hvidberg, H. Fredborg, G. Lemming, P. Bjerg, and P. Binning.Morten Bondgaard (Central Denmark Region/Denmark)

* Design and Implementation of East Side Corrective Measures and Incorporation of Ecological Restoration: Confidential Site. K.J. Bogatch.Keith J. Bogatch (Brown and Caldwell/USA)

Developing a Protocol for Evaluating Ecosystem Services at Superfund Cleanups. C.S. Pachon, K. Lynch, M. Mahoney, A. Neale, and E.J. Lipps.Carlos Pachon (U.S. EPA/USA)

Ecological Underpinnings of the Onondaga Lake Sustainable Remediation Program. A.S. Eallonardo, C.C. Calkins, D.M. Crawford, B.A. Kubiak, C.F. Leary, M.S. Markert, J.L. Reymond, T.A. Volk, and J.P. McAuliffe.Anthony S. Eallonardo (OBG/USA)

56

* CVOC Treatment via High-Volume Sodium Permanganate Injections. W. Caldicott, P. Kakarla, M. Temple, K. O’Neal, and M. Ratner.Will Caldicott (ISOTEC/USA)

* Efficacy of Chemical Oxidation Methods on Carbon Tetrachloride and Chlorobenzene at a Large-Scale Site. J. Montoy and K. Wheeler.Jorge Montoy (Sovereign Consulting, Inc./USA)

* Enabling NAPL Remediation through Surfactants. D. Socci, J. Holcomb, and G. Dahal.Dan Socci (EthicalChem/USA)

* Finding the ISCO Sweet Spot: Avoiding Potential Pitfalls of ISCO Implementation. J. McDonough, K. Houston, M. Klemmer, J. Saling, and M. Ahmad.Jeff McDonough (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

The Future of ISCO Research and Development: How Far Can We Push the Boundaries of ISCO Effectiveness? R.J. Watts and A.L. Teel.Richard J. Watts (Washington State University/USA)

* Get the Perc out of Here! ISCO of PCE-Impacted Groundwater before Capping an Asbestos Cell. F. Ricciardi.Frank Ricciardi (Weston & Sampson/USA)

* Gravity-Feed Delivery of Oxidant to a Dilute PCP Plume. J. Byrd and G. Jirak.Jennifer Byrd (ERM/USA)

* In Situ Chemical Oxidation in Sandstone Bedrock at a Site Using an Infiltration Gravel Pit. P. Tang, S. Nagulapaty, S. Dore, D. Harbaugh, A. Ng, P. Fuchs, D. Sabba, and J. Argyres.Philip Tang (GHD/USA)

* In Situ Permanganate Slurry Emplacement for Source Zone Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents in Fine-Grained Material. C. Lenker, A. Ayyaswami, L.M. Rebele, and R. Limaye.Carl Lenker (Tetra Tech, Inc./USA)

Innovative Sodium Persulfate Activation Using Food-Grade Carbohydrates. P. Kakarla and Y. Chin.Prasad K. Kakarla (In-Situ Oxidative Technologies, Inc. [ISOTEC]/USA)

* Modeling In Situ Chemical Oxidation for Contaminated Groundwater. J.L. Clark-Stone, G. Yao, K. Fowler, M. Crimi, K. Bliss, P. Evans, and P. Dugan.Jesse L. Clark-Stone (Clarkson University/USA)

* A Novel Method for Activating Klozur Persulfate: Organic Compounds. B.A. Smith, P. Block, B. Desjardins, and E. Pisanova.Brant Smith (PeroxyChem, LLC/USA)

* Organochlorine Pesticide Remediation Using Persulfate. A.K. Kutty, J.A. England, and R. Thompson.Arvind Kutty (Gilbane Company/USA)

Permanganate-Activated Persulfate (PMPS) for the Treatment of a Source Zone: An Innovative Dual-Oxidant Formulation. B. Marvin, M. O’Neill, C. Scherier, K. Frasco, and P. Dugan.Bruce K. Marvin (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

The Role of Intra-NAPL Diffusion on Mass Transfer of Multicomponent NAPLs Subjected to Chemical Oxidation. S. Shafieiyoun and N.R. Thomson.Saeid Shafieiyoun (University of Waterloo/Canada)

* Selection of Chemical Oxidant for Treatment of Groundwater Contaminated with Chlorinated Organics. S. Kumar.Shiva Kumar (Tetra Tech, Inc./USA)

* Strategies for Managing Residual Persulfate in the Use of Persulfate for ISCO. T. Pac and R. Brown.Timothy Pac (ERM/USA)

* Successful Use of In Situ Chemical Oxidation Technologies for the Removal of Chlorinated Solvents in Soils and Multiple Aquifers at a Southeastern Louisiana Industrial Facility. T. Glibota, T. Liebert, and W. Schramm.Thomas R. Liebert (Reardon Environmental, Inc./USA)

* Treatment Train Remediation (ISCO, SVE, and ZVI) of a Chlorinated Solvents Plume in Georgia. J. Byrd and G. Jirak.Jennifer Byrd (ERM/USA)

Using Potassium Klozur Persulfate as a Slow-Release Oxidant and Permeable Reactive Barrier. B.A. Smith and B. Desjardins.Brant Smith (PeroxyChem, LLC/USA)

G2. Innovations in In Situ Chemical Reduction (ISCR) RemediationPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Patrick Evans (CDM Smith, Inc.) Deborah L. Schnell (GeoSierra Environmetal, Inc.)

* Application of ISCR in Remediation of Chlorohydrocarbon-Contaminated Groundwater. S. Zhang and L. Ma.Sailor Zhang (Shanghai Greenment Environmental Technology Co., Ltd./China)

* Biological and Geophysical Monitoring of Hexavalent Chrome Reduction by Cellulomonas sp. Strain ES6. J.W. Morad, J.N. Thomle, K.C. Johnson, T.C. Johnson, B.D. Lee, and M.H. Lee.Joseph Morad (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory/USA)


57

* Comparison of Biological Dechlorination to In Situ Chemical Reduction at a PCE Source Area, Former Naval Air Station, Moffett Field. A. Estey, V. Harris, S. Anderson, N. Hey, and D. Leigh.Neil Hey (Vironex Technical Services, LLC/USA)

* Comparison of In Situ Chemical Reduction Using EHC® versus ELS™ plus ZVI for Aggressive Treatment of TCE. V.S. Mankad, N. Diem, and D. Leigh.Vibhav S. Mankad (GHD Services, Inc./USA)

Complete Dechlorination of 1,2-Dichloroethane by Coupled Nanoiron-Dithionite Treatment. A. Nunez Garcia, H.K. Boparai, and D.M. O’Carroll.Ariel Nunez Garcia (Western University/Canada)

* Elemental, Minerological, and Morphological Evalaution for PRB Design. R. Kremer, B. Tillotson, J. Claypool, and J. Studer.Bryce Tillotson (Brown and Caldwell/USA)

Enhancing the Reactivity of ZVI with Soluble Reductants. R.A. Brown, K.A. Morris, and M. Leahy.Richard A. Brown (ERM/USA)

* Evaluation of Nanoscale Zerovalent Iron for Reductive Degradation of Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX): A Summary of Batch, Column, and Field Studies. C.-S. Lee and Y.-S. Chang.Chung-Seop Lee (POSTECH/South Korea)

* An Examination of Different Iron Sources in Abiotic Reduction. R.A. Brown, K.A. Morris, and M. Leahy.Richard A. Brown (ERM/USA)

* Field Application of Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination in Combination with Direct Injection of Nanoscale Zerovalent Iron. A.G. Hindrichsen, J.U. Bastrup, E. Schmidt, and M. Rydam.Anne Gammeltoft Hindrichsen (GEO/Denmark)

* Field-Scale Injection of a Nanoiron-Dithionite Treatment for In Situ Remediation. A. Nunez Garcia, H.K. Boparai, D.M. O’Carroll, C. deBoer, A. Chowdhury, C. Kocur, J. Gabayet, J. Herrera, L. Austrins, C. Peace, and R. Johnson.Denis M. O’Carroll (Western University/Canada)

* Full-Scale Application of In Situ Chemical Reduction of a Large TCE Plume in an Aerobic Aquifer at Concord Naval Weapons Station. A. Estey, V. Harris, S. Anderson, N. Hey, and D. Leigh.Neil Hey (Vironex Technical Services, LLC/USA)

* Full-Scale Applications of New Nanoscale ZVIs for Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons. M. Cernik, P. Kvapil, J. Braun, and V. Stejskal.Miroslav Cernik (Technical University of Liberec/Czech Republic)


* In Situ Chemical Reduction of Chlorinated Ethenes at a Redevelopment Site Using EHC® Reagent and ELS™ Microemulsion. F. Lakhwala, R. Srirangam, R. Harwood, E. Mertz, M. Meriney, and L. Dodge.Fayaz Lakhwala (PeroxyChem, LLC/USA)

* In Situ Enhanced Biological and Chemical Reduction Pilot Study of TCE in Complex Fractured Bedrock. F.T. Barranco, K. Fox, J. Drummond, F. MacMillan, B. Rundell, R. Bower, and D. Leigh.Frank T. Barranco (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc./USA)

Iron Oxides with Adsorbed Fe(II): Redox Potential and Role in Contaminant Degradation by Abiotic Natural Attenuation. D. Fan, G. O’Brien Johnson, M. Bradley, R.L. Johnson, and P.G. Tratnyek.Dimin Fan (U.S. EPA/USA)

* Longevity of Nanozerovalent Iron for In Situ Chemical Reduction (ISCR): Characterization and Enhancement. D. Fan, G. O’Brien Johnson, R.L. Johnson, and P.G. Tratnyek.Dimin Fan (U.S. EPA/USA)

Long-Term Monitoring Data of Metals as a Secondary Concern during In Situ Chemical Reduction of CVOC DNAPL. J.G.D. Peale, C. Savoie, J. Molin, and J. Mueller.James Peale (Maul Foster & Alongi, Inc./USA)

* Migration and Fate of ZVI Nanoparticles Used for Groundwater Remediation. J. Filip, I. Škopíková, P. Kvapil, V. Stejskal, and T. Cajthaml.Jan Filip (Palacký University/Czech Republic)

* Performance Evaluation of AMTS for Remediation of PCBs in Soils. C. Akudo, W. Campbell, J. Guerin, W. Theriot, and B. F. Droy.Christopher Akudo (TEA Inc./USA)

Polymer-Modified Nanoscale Zerovalent Iron (NZVI) together with an Electromagnetic Field Rapidly Removed Entrapped NAPL Source Zone in Saturated Porous Media. T. Phenrat, T. Thongboot, and G.V. Lowry.Tanapon Phenrat (Naresuan University/Thailand)

* Significant Acceleration of Timeframe to Closure via Transition from Long-Term Biological Treatment to Zerovalent Iron Injection for the Remediation of Chlorinated Solvents in Groundwater. R. Kovacs, S. Senh, W. Silverstein, I. Bush, D. Moss, and R. Kelley.Robert Kovacs (Roux Associates, Inc./USA)

* Study of the Migration of ZVI Nanoparticles in an Artificial, Homogeneous Aquifer in a 2-D and 3-D Arrangement. K. Pešková, J. Braun, K. Miyajima, and M. Cerník.Kristýna Pešková (Technical University of Liberec/Czech Republic)

58

* Sustainable, Iron-Based Bionano-Bioparticles from a Dehalogenating Microbial Consortium Allows Remediation of Water Polluted with PCE. L.M. Bretón-Deval and H.M. Poggi-Varaldo.Luz Breton-Deval (Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del Instituto Politécnico Nacional/Mexico)

Sustained Remediation of Carbon Tetrachloride Using In Situ Formation and Regeneration of Ferrous Sulfide. J. Barros, E. Schwartz, L. Hovey, K. Woodburne, and R. Stanforth.Jessica Barros (TRC/USA)

* The Utilization of Different Graphite Cathodes for Trichloethylene Removal from Aqueous Solution. L. Rajic, N. Fallahpour, and A.N. Alshawabkeh.Ljiljana Rajic (Northeastern University/USA)

Zerovalent Iron and Other Reducing/Adsorbing Metals: Translating the Latest Research into Technology. P.G. Tratnyek.Paul G. Tratnyek (Oregon Health & Science University/USA)

G3. In Situ Biogeochemical (ISBG) RemediationPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChair: Mandy M. Michalsen (U.S. Army Corp of Engineers)

* Abiotic Reduction of Polychlorinated Hydrocarbons by Bioreduced Iron Oxide. J. Das and A. Agrawal.Jaya Das (Wright State University/USA)

* Applications of Biogeochemical Treatment of RDX-Contaminated Waters. R. Britto, R. Arnseth, and H.M. Smith.Ronnie Britto (Tetra Tech, Inc./USA)

* Bioaugmentation-Enhanced Chemical Reduction at an Active Brownfield Redevelopment Site. L. Zeng, S. Abrams, B. Gochenaur, M. Wenrick, K. Novalis, M. Ng, and M. Burke.Lingke Zeng (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

* Deployment Status of Biogeochemical Reductive Dehalogenation (BiRD) Groundwater Treatment Process: Bench, Pilot, and Full Scale. J.E. Studer.James Studer (InfraSUR, LLC/USA)

* Effects of Varying Biogeochemical Controls on Anaerobic BTEX Biodegradation in Greenhouse-Scale ABR Systems. L.M. Pipkin, J.H. Pardue, and V. Elango.Leslie M. Pipkin (Louisiana State University/USA)

Enhanced Dechlorination of Carbon Tetrachloride Using Layered Iron(II)-Iron(III) Hydroxides (Green Rusts). W. Yin, L. Huang, and H.C. Hansen.Weizhao Yin (University of Copenhagen/Denmark)

An Evaluation of Abiotic Degradation of PCE in Glacial Geology Using Magnetic Susceptibility, Ferrous Iron Analysis, and a Microcosm Study. C. Gurr, T. Tomaselli, C. Schaefer, S. Kellogg, and C. Post.Christopher Gurr (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

* Full-Scale Remediation of TCE and 1,1,1-TCA Groundwater Plume Using Biogeochemical Reductive Dechlorination (BiRD): Glacial Till and Outwash. J.E. Studer and H.C. Meredith.James Studer (InfraSUR, LLC/USA)

High-Resolution Delineation of Chlorinated Solvent Concentrations, Biogeochemical Processes, and Microbial Communities in Saturated Subsurface Environments. H. Schneider, W.A. Jackson, P.B. Hatzinger, and P.G. Koster van Groos.Haley Schneider (Texas Tech University/USA)

In Situ Biogeochemical Treatment: Lessons Learned. H.F. Stroo, P. Evans, J. Wilson, A. Leeson, and C.A. Lebron.Hans F. Stroo (Stroo Consulting, LLC/USA)

* In Situ Biotic/Abiotic Remediation of Dissolved-Phase Chlorinated Solvents. E.M. Huntley, M. Burns, and G. Rieger.Erin M. Huntley (WSP/USA)

Subgrade Biogeochemical Reactors: Design and Performance of Multiple Configurations. J. Gamlin, D. Downey, and B. Shearer.Jeff Gamlin (CH2M HILL/USA)

G4. Synergies in Technology CouplingPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: William Guite (Hepure Technologies) Carol Winell (GEO)

* Amendment Synergies in the Combined Remedy Approach for Dissolved VOC Treatment. M. Burns and A. Bakenne.Matthew Burns (WSP | Parsons Brinkerhoff/USA)

* Brazilian Remediation Train Strategy: How We Remediate a Eucalyptus Growing Site Affected by Diesel Oil. M. Sillos, S.C. Nascimento, A. Passarelli, F. Lima do Santos, and E. Araujo.Marcos Sillos (Edutech Ambiental/Brazil)

* Collaborative Efforts to Address Changing Groundwater Chemistry during In Situ Thermal Treatment. C. Rockwell, F. Symmes, R. Swift, J. Ekedahl, P. Nangeroni, and J. Balesano.Cathy Rockwell (Woodard & Curran/USA)

Combination of ZVI and EVO to Remediate a Large, Shallow TCE DNAPL Plume at a Former Industrial Facility. K. Parra, M.J. Liskowitz, E. Moskal, and L. Cook.Eric Moskal (ARS Technologies, Inc./USA)


59

* Combined ISCO and ISCR Approach for DNAPL Brownfield Redevelopment in New Jersey. W. Moody, D. Bryant, and S. Turkot.Will Moody (Geo-Cleanse International, Inc./USA)

* Combining Biological Reduction and Chemical Oxidation to Treat a Commingled Plume. R.E. Mayer, P. Srivastav, S. Watson, and R. Duffield.Robert Mayer (CB&I Federal Services, LLC/USA)

Coupling Pneumatic Fracturing and Amendment Injection to Treat Residual Hydrocarbons in Low-Permeability Glacial Till. J. Robb, C. Regan, J.R. Fiacco, S. Braga, T. Pac, and K. Morris.Joseph Robb (ERM/USA)

Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination of Nominal cVOC Concentrations Utilizing a Synergistic Blend of Zerovalent Iron and Organic Carbon. I.R. Schaffner, E. Lindhult, and K.J. Davis.I. Richard Schaffner (Pennoni Associates, Inc./USA)

Evaluation of Multiple Treatment Strategies for Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents. A. Weston, S. Dore, D. Pope, and C. Bucior.Sophia Dore (GHD/USA)

Groundwater Sulfate at Former Wastewater Treatment Facility Enhances Abiotic/Biotic Remedy. K. Kinsella, T.P. Justham, C.B. Melby, and J.M. Wieck.Karen Kinsella (GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc./USA)

* Integrated Treatment Design for Remediation of Chlorinated Solvents at a Former Dry Cleaner Site. H. Hinrichsen, J. Bergman, and G. Leonard.Helena Hinrichsen (RGS 90 Sverige AB/Sweden)

* Laboratory Evaluations of EVO and EVO-ZVI with Shear Thinning Fluid Injections into Heterogeneous Formations. M.D. Lee, S.L. Lee, J.E. Lee, and R.L. Raymond.Michael Lee (Terra Systems, Inc./USA)

* Large Plume Cleanup Using ERH, DGR, and Excavation under Expedited Timeframe. M.R. Klemmer, F.C. Payne, and W. Parry.Mark R. Klemmer (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* Reduction of Chlorinated Solvents in Groundwater Containing Inhibitory, Elevated Levels of Sulfate. R.E. Mayer, P. Srivastav, S. Watson, S. Suryanarayanan, and A. Wilmore.Robert Mayer (CB&I Federal Services, LLC/USA)

* Remediating Chlorinated Solvents Using MIPS, Angled Borings, Hydraulic Fracturing, and Emulsified Zerovalent Iron (eZVI). W. Guite and H. Andolsek.William Guite (Hepure Technologies/USA)

* Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons at an Operational Facility Combining Chemical Oxidation and Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination. R.J.F. Bewley and P. Hick.Richard John Foster Bewley (AECOM/England)

* Simulation of Persulfate Oxidation Combined with Enhanced Bioremediation as a Combined Remedy. M. Shayan, N.R. Thomson, J.W. Molson, and J.F. Barker.Neil R. Thomson (University of Waterloo/Canada)

Strategies for Successful Injection of Zerovalent Iron and Bioaugmentation Products. C.L. Rismiller.Christopher Rismiller (Environmental Field Services/USA)

* Successful Large-Scale Remediation Using Pneumatic Emplacement of Amendments in Shallow, Tight Swelling Clays. M.D. Wichman, B. Wight, J. Liskowitz, and R.L. Kelley.Robert L. Kelley (ARS Technologies, Inc./USA)

Successful Residual DNAPL Remediation Using a Polytechnology Approach. G.P. Gordon.Glen P. Gordon (Amec Foster Wheeler, Inc./USA)

* Synergistic Utilization of Zerovalent Iron and Emulsified Vegetable Oil for the Sustainable Remediation of PCE in Bedrock. M. Liskowitz.Michael Liskowitz (ARS Technologies, Inc./USA)

* Technology Coupling for a Large TCE Plume Using a Subgrade Biogeochemical Reactor, Enhanced Phytoremediation, Biobarriers, and Enhanced Attenuation. L. Pratt, R. Delisle, J. Gamlin, G. Anderson, and L. Duke.Jeff Gamlin (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Transition Criteria for a Three-Stage Thermal, Bioremediation, and MNA Remedy at the Former Williams Air Force Base. S.C. Pearson, S. Beadle, D.R. Smallbeck, G. Heron, and S. Griepke-Nielsen.Stuart Pearson (Amec Foster Wheeler, Inc./USA)

G5. Enhancements with Biological RemediesPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Todd Wiedemeier (T.H. Wiedemeier & Associates, Inc.) Scott Wilson (Regenesis)

Anaerobic Reductive Dechlorination of Chloroethane...It Does Happen! E. Gustafson.Erik Gustafson (The Louis Berger Group, Inc./USA)

* A Combination of Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation Using Optimized Amendment Recipe and Identified Benzene Degraders through Horizontal Wells. W. Xiong, C. Mathies, M. Pachal, R. Bechard, M. Sather, K. Bradshaw, and T. Carlson.Wenhui Xiong (Stantec/Canada)


60

* Competition among Hydrogen Oxidizers Using the Hydrogen-Based Membrane Biofilm Fiber Reactor (MBfR) for Chloroform Reductive Dechlorination. Y.S. Lai, A. Ontiveros-Valencia, T. Coskun, R. Krajmalnik-Brown, and B.E. Rittmann.Aura Ontiveros-Valencia (Arizona State University/USA)

* Construct of 1,2-Dichlorobenzene-Degrading Consortium. Ge Cui, M.F. Chien, K. Suto, and C. Inoue.Ge Cui (Tohoku University/Japan)

* Cultivated Bacteria Added as Bioaugmentation Inhibit Successful Bioremediation by Noncultivable Microbes. A. Sinkkonen and M. Romantschuk.Aki Sinkkonen (University of Helsinki/Finland)

* Effect of 3-Pyridinecarboxamide on Lacase and Peroxidase Dependent on Manganese Activities from Trametes versicolor. M.C. Vargas-Romero, M.D. Salas-Araiza, V.J. Alvarez-Villafaña, R.A. Veloz-Garcia, and G.M.L. Ruiz-Aguilar.Graciela M.L. Ruiz-Aguilar (University of Guanajuato/Mexico)

Enhanced Attenuation of VOCs Using Humate Amendments. D.G. Jackson, B.B. Looney, J.A. Ross, B.J. Kramer, S.L. McFalls, and J.E. Cardoso-Neto.Dennis G. Jackson (Savannah River National Laboratory/USA)

* Evaluation of the Interactions between Hexabromodecane (HBCD) and Soil Microbial Diversity: A New Challenge for Remediation. T.T. Le, C.S. Lee, and Y.S. Chang.Yoon-Seok Chang (POSTECH/South Korea)

Field Performance of Dispersive Colloidal Activated Carbon: Lessons Learned from Multiple Geological Settings. J. Birnstingl, C. Sandefur, and K. Thoreson.Jeremy Birnstingl (Regenesis/United Kingdom)

* Finding the Needle in a Haystack: Detailed Source Delineation and Bioremediation of Two Groundwater Contaminant Source Areas at WP14/LF15, Dover AFB, Delaware. A. Bloom, H.A. Brown, R. Lyon, and L. Stenberg.Holly Brown (AECOM/USA)

Geochemical Conditions Affect Corrinoid Pools That Control Dehalococcoides mccartyi Reductive Dechlorination Activity. B. Simsir, J. Yan, F.E. Löffler, A.K. Bourdon, and S.R. Campagna.Burcu Simsir (University of Tennessee/USA)

* Implementation of Bioremediation at a Former Wood-Treating Facility. J. Byrd and W. Butler.Jennifer Byrd (ERM/USA)

* Influential Environmental Factors on Biodegradation of Trichloroethylene and 1,2-Dichloroethane in Groundwater. S-C. Chang, M-R. Ho, and T-W. Chen.Shu-Chi Chang (National Chung Hsing University/Taiwan)

* Innovative Enhanced Bioremediation of DNAPL Soil. L. Zeng, S. Abrams, A. Ciblak, A. Dahmani, K. McKeever, R. Lees, and M. Boufadel.Lingke Zeng (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

* Investigation of the Transformation of Lightly Chlorinated Dioxins by Dibenzofuran-Degrading Aerobic Bacteria from Aquatic Sediments. H.S. Al Mnehlawi, D.E. Fennell, and L.A. Rodenburg.Donna E. Fennell (Rutgers University/USA)

* Isolation and Characterization of a Strain of Pseudomonas sp. (Strain 10-1B): A Potential Inoculum Candidate for Green and Sustainable Remediation. M. Bello-Akinosho, R. Adeleke, M. Thantsha, and M. Maila.Rasheed Adeleke (Agriculture Research Council/South Africa)

* Microbial Influence on Iodine Speciation at the 200 West Hanford Site. S. Brooks, E. Moser, B.D. Lee, and M.H. Lee.Shelby Brooks (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory/USA)

* Microbial Iodate Reduction by Metal-Reducing Members of the Genus Shewanella. H.D. Shin, S.K. Wee, and T.J. DiChristina.Hyun-Dong Shin (Georgia Institute of Technology/USA)

* Pesticide Mineralization Capacity in Rapid Sand Filters of Drinking Water Production Facilities. J. Vandermaesen, D. Springael, E. Walravens, J. Degryse, and J. Boonen.Dirk Springael (KULeuven/Belgium)

* Reductive Dechlorination of Lightly Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins in Aquatic Sediments. D.E. Fennell, C. Schneider, H.S. Al Mnehlawi, H. Zhen, J. Liu, and L.A. Rodenburg.Donna E. Fennell (Rutgers University/USA)

G6. Bench, Pilot, and Treatability StudiesPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChair: Russell Sirabian (Battelle)

* Accelerated Biodegradation of Chlorinated Contaminants Facilitated Using Liquid Activated Carbon: A Pilot Study in South Carolina. M.J. Valentine, J. Tribley, and B. Poling.Matthew J. Valentine (Woodard & Curran/USA)

* Activated Persulfate Pilot Trial for Benzene Plume Treatment in Australia. T. Pac, D. Poudyal, R. Stravastav, H. Swift, and T. Astbury.Timothy Pac (ERM/USA)


61

* Adapting Aerospace Technology for Cleaner, Better, and Faster Remediation. M.L. Sujata and D.K. Burr.Deborah Burr (Soil-Therm Equipment, Inc./USA)

* Chlorinated-Solvent Gas Migration and Redistribution in Heterogeneous Porous Media Subjected to Electrical Resistance Heating. J. Munholland, K.G. Mumford, B.H. Kueper, and J. LaChance.Jonah Munholland (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* Column Studies to Evaluate EVO for Nitrate Removal in Permeable Reactive Barriers on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. M.D. Lee, F. Hostrop, E. Hauptmann, R.L. Raymond, and J. Begley.Michael Lee (Terra Systems, Inc./USA)

* Column Study for Evaluation of In Situ Iron Fouling—A Cautionary Tale of Aquifer Blockage. R. Oesterreich, M. Klemmer, and W. Parry.Ryan C. Oesterreich (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* Comparative Analysis of Continuous-Flow Column Treatability Study and Pilot Field-Scale Treatment Implementation from a Perchloroethylene-Impacted Fractured Bedrock Site. E.M. Driver, R.U. Halden, M. Charles, J. Roberts, P. Dollar, and P. Hurst.Erin M. Driver (Arizona State University/USA)

* Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation (EISBR) Pilot Study: Selection of Treatment Remedy Based on Site and Budget Constraints. P. Kakarla, M. Temple, K. O’Neal, and T. Andrews.Michael Temple (In-Situ Oxidative Technologies, Inc. [ISOTEC]/USA)

* Feasibility Study of VOCs Chemical Reduction: Bench-Scale Test. S. Aluani, C. Spilborghs, E. Pujol, R. Moura, F. Tomiatti, R.H.H. Kim, and T. Xavier.Sidney Aluani (SGW Services/Brazil)

Field Pilot Test of In Situ Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation of Phenoxyacid Pesticides as a Remedy for a Pesticide Point Source. K. Tsitonaki, S. Roost, K. Andersen, L.C. Larsen, K. Smith, H. Milter, U.B. Gosewinkel, T.K. Nielsen, and A. Johansen.Katerina Tsitonaki (Orbicon A/S/Denmark)

* Highly Successful ERD Pilot Evaluation Utilizing a Simple Additive Delivery-Approach. K.C. Armstrong.Kent C. Armstrong (BioStryke Remediation Products, LLC/USA)

* Innovative Absorbent Materials to Control Groundwater/Surface-Water Interaction (GSI) Issues at a Former Refinery Site: Pilot Study. D. Gray, D. Hare, J. Mathias, and S. Ericksen.Doug Gray (AECOM/USA)

* Laboratory- and Pilot-Scale Studies of In Situ Remedial Technologies for Mixed Organolead and Chlorinated VOC Plumes. K. Diller, D.R. Griffiths, M. Phelps, and K. Garon.Kristi Diller (Parsons Corp./USA)

Lessons Learned in Conducting Commercial Treatability Services. A. Dahmani, S. Abrams, L. Zeng, and A. Ciblak.Amine Dahmani (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

* Long-Term Pilot Testing along a Runway at Oslo Airport to Prevent Unacceptable Impact on Norway’s Largest Groundwater Reservoir from Deicing Compounds. J. Dall-Jepsen.Jarl Dall-Jepsen (COWI A/S/Denmark)

* Macroporous Alginate Substrate-Bound Growth of Fe0 Nanoparticles: Characterization and Reactivity for Nitrate Removal from Aqueous Solutions. C.S. Lee and Y.S. Chang.Chung-Seop Lee (POSTECH/South Korea)

* Pilot Study Demonstrates Metabolic and Cometabolic Degradation and Prevention of Mass Flux across Site Boundary. A.A. Rees.Assaf A. Rees (AECOM/USA)

Pilot Study of Electrokinetically Delivered, Thermally Activated Persulfate in Clayey Till. L.W. Nedergaard, I.H. Kerrn-Jespersen, M. Terkelsen, C. Riis, H. Steffensen, S. Jensen, M.P. Wamberg, D. Reynolds, E. Cox, and D. Gent.Laerke Nedergaard (Capital Region of Denmark/Denmark)

* Pilot Test of Two Enhanced Anaerobic Bioremediation Amendments in a Chlorinated Solvent Plume. M.T. Becker, T.G. Tunnicliff, and S. Fiorenza.Mark Becker (AECOM/USA)

Pilot Testing and 3-D Simulations to Evaluate Steam-Front Migration in a High-Permeability Aquifer. T. Powers, J. Seaton, K. Davis, R. Flynn, J. Dablow, A. Roberts, and R. Falta.Jay Dablow (ERM/USA)

* Remediation of Sulfolane-Impacted Groundwater Utilizing Enhanced Electromagnetic Irradiation. S. Park, J. Waddell, B.J. Min, S. Kim, R. Vyas, and J. Lee.Jevins Waddell (TRIUM Environmental Inc./Canada)

* Successful PCB Remediation of a Contaminated Soil Using Extraction and PCB Destruction: Bench Scale Test. S. Aluani, C. Spilborghs, E. Pujol, F. Tomiatti, and R.H.H. Kim.Sidney Aluani (SGW Services/Brazil)

* Testing and Design of an Innovative Air Sparge Curtain to Control Contaminant Migration. M. Ambrusch, O.J. Uppal, S. Ciambruschini, S.H. Abrams, J. Friscia, K. Novalis, N. Najib, and I. Khan.Matthew J. Ambrusch (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

* Treatability and Full-Scale Design of Ex Situ Thermal Remediation of Oil-Laden Soil Cuttings in Russia. X. Chen, G. Geckeler, and C. Winell.Xiaosong Chen (GEO/USA)


62

* Using In-Well Microcosms to Pilot a Remediation Approach. J.K. Sheldon.Jack Sheldon (Antea Group/USA)

G7. Advances in Amendments and Delivery MethodsPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Robert Elliott (Remediation Products, Inc.) Bruce K. Marvin (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.)

* Advanced Locating Technologies for Horizontal Well Installation. M. Lubrecht, L. Anderson, and R. Parduski.Michael Lubrecht (Directed Technologies Drilling, Inc./USA)

Angled Injection to Mitigate PCE Intrusion into a Stream at a Federal Superfund Site in the Piedmont Region of North Carolina. C. Krouse, C. Fitzgerald, S. Noland, and N. Thacker.Caleb Krouse (AECOM/USA)

Application of Electrokinetics for Oxidant Delivery and Complete Remediation of TCE-Contaminated, Low-Permeability Porous Media. A.I. Chowdhury, C. de Boer, J.I. Gerhard, D. O’Carroll, D.A. Reynolds, and B.E. Sleep.Ahmed I. Chowdhury (University of Western Ontario/Canada)

* The Beauty of In Situ Recirculation Remediation. T.R. Andrews and S. Borchert.Trevre Andrews (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Carbothermal Synthesis of Halloysite-Supported Carbon-Iron Composites for Trichloroethylene Remediation. H. Ke, V.T. John, and Y. Su.Hang Ke (Tsinghua University/China)

* Combining Adsorption and Bioremediation Technologies for In Situ Groundwater Remediation and Vapor Intrusion Mitigation. D.F. Alden and G.M. Birk.David Alden (Tersus Environmental, LLC/USA)

* A Coordinated Series of Technology Demonstrations to Evaluate Optimal Substrate Dispersal and Recirculation Methods. J. Gamlin, G. Anderson, and L. Duke.Jeff Gamlin (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Directional Drilling and Well Installation at Small Sites. D.W. Ombalski and D. Bardsley.Dan Ombalski (Directed Technologies Drilling, Inc./USA)

Direct-Push, High-Pressure Jet Injection for Controlled Amendment Delivery in Low-Permeability Zones: Full-Scale Demonstration. C.M. Ross, D. Chlebica, N. Durant, W.W. Slack, P. Johansen, T.H. Jørgensen, and E.B. Weeth.Chapman M. Ross (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

* A Dispersive, Colloidal Activated-Carbon Technology Platform for Securing Speed and Certainty in Groundwater Remediation. J. Birnstingl, B. Poling, and C. Sandefur.Jeremy Birnstingl (Regenesis/United Kingdom)

* Dynamic Groundwater Recirculation: Fast Track to Site Closure. S. Murphy, M. Klemmer, and W. Parry.Scott Murphy (ARCADIS/USA)

* Enhanced TCE Treatment by Pneumatic Fracturing to Facilitate Injections at a Pump-and-Treat Bedrock Site. A.L. McGinty, F.T. Barranco, H. Ngo, and B. Rundell.Angela McGinty (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC/USA)

* Enhancing the Performance of Zerovalent Iron for Remediation of Chlorinated Ethenes through Facile Surface Sulfidation Treatment. Y.L. Han and W.L. Yan.Yanlai Han (Texas Tech University/USA)

* Evaluation of Injectate Distribution Effectiveness of Horizontal Wells Using a GeoTrax™ Geophysical Investigation. K.J. Steffen, R.W. Blackmer, and C. Fausel.Kelly Steffen (Equipoise Corporation/USA)

Field Demonstration of Slow-Release, Unactivated Persulfate Cylinders for In Situ Chemical Oxidation of Chlorinated Ethenes and 1,4-Dioxane. P. Evans, J. Hooper, M. Lamar, P. Dugan, M. Crimi, and M. Pound.Patrick Evans (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

* Field-Scale Demonstration of EK-BIO as an Innovative Technology for Remediation of Low-Permeability and Heterogeneous Materials. J. Wang, E. Cox, D. Reynolds, D. Gent, M. Singletary, and A. Wilson.James Wang (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Foam-Assisted Delivery of Nanoscale Zerovalent Iron in Porous Media. Y. Ding, B. Liu, L. Zhong, and X. Li.Xiqing Li (Peking University/China)

Full-Scale EK-BIO Treatment of PCE DNAPL in Clay Till: Results and Perspectives after Three Years. I. Damgaard, H. Kerrn-Jespersen, M. Terkelsen, C. Riis, M. Bymose, D. Pade, M. Wamberg, E. Cox, J. Wang, and D. Gent.Ida Damgaard (Capital Region of Denmark/Denmark)

* Hybrid Soil Fracturing to Increase Permeability and Enhance SVE and AS Systems in a Clay Unit at Two Industrial Facilities in West Virginia. E. Moskal, M. Germon, and J. Cibrik.Matt Germon (CH2M HILL/USA)

Improved Delivery of Groundwater Remediation Amendments by Chaotic Advection. D.C. Mays, R.M. Neupauer, and A.N. Piscopo.David Mays (University of Colorado, Denver/USA)

In Situ Geochemical Immobilization Technology for DNAPL Management. J. Mueller, J. Erickson, M. Slenska, and M. Brourman.Jim Mueller (Provectus Environmental Products/USA)


63

* In Situ Geochemical Stabilization of Creosote DNAPL 2.75-Acre Process Area of Former Wood-Treating Site. J.R. Erickson, C. Gutmann, L.A. Doner, J. Toth, M. Isaacson, G.W. Council, M. Brourman, M. Slenska, M. Scalzi, and J. Mueller.James R. Erickson (Tetra Tech, Inc./USA)

* In Situ Groundwater Remediation at a Former Dry Cleaning Facility in Tennessee. W.L. Brab and J.E. Allan.William L. Brab (AST Environmental, Inc./USA)

* In Situ Groundwater Treatment via Liquid Activated-Carbon Technology Keeps Large Chicago Brownfield Redevelopment Project on Track. R. Moore and M. Otto.Ryan Moore (Regenesis/USA)

* Increasing Permeability with Hybrid Fracturing Process Creates Successful Enhanced Biological Recirculation System for BTEX, MTBE, and TBA Remediation in Groundwater. I. Bush, E. Bueltel, and R.L. Kelley.Robert L. Kelley (ARS Technologies, Inc./USA)

* Laboratory Testing and Validation of Directional Horizontal Wells for In Situ Groundwater Remediation. A. DiMarco, M. Crimi, C. Divine, and T. O’Fallon.Abrahm DiMarco (Clarkson University/USA)

* Optimizing Delivery of Contaminants to Oxidants. D. Socci, J. Holcomb, and G. Dahal.Dan Socci (EthicalChem/USA)

* Overview of Horizontal Directionally Drilled Remediation Wells for Liquid Amendment Injection. M. Strong and G. Losonsky.Mark Strong (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Persulfate Chemical Functionalization of Carbon Nanotubes and Associated Adsorption Behaviors in Aqueous Phase. S. Huang, C. Liang, S. Jatta, and Y.J. Chen.Shengyi Huang (National Chung Hsing University/Taiwan)

* Preparation of a Biochar-Based Composite Material and Its Effect on Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Degradation in Groundwater. L. Meng, W.Q. Wen, L. Guo, and J. Yang.Liang Meng (Shanghai Academy of Environmental Sciences/China)

* Recent ISS Activities for the Treatment of Chlorinated Organics. P.R. Lear.Paul Lear (Envirocon, Inc./USA)

* Using Multiple Amendments and Delivery Methods to Treat Extensive PCE Impacts in Complex Soil and Bedrock Matrices. T.A. Harp.Tom Harp (LT Environmental, Inc./USA)

G8. Soil MixingPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChair: Raymond Lees (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services)

* Advances in Soil-Mixing Technology for ISS, ISCO, and ISCR Treatment. C.M. Wilk.Charles Wilk (ALLU Group, Inc./USA)

Evaluation of Slag and Portland Cement Mixes to Simulate Treatment of Acidic Waste via Solidification/Stabilization in a Deep Soil Mix Application. D. Collins, C. Cain, and M. Poltorak.David Collins (MWH Americas, Inc./USA)

* Evaluation of Thermal, Deep Soil Mixing, In Situ Soil Stabilization, and In Situ Biotic/Abiotic Technologies for Remediation of a Chlorinated DNAPL Site. J. Bunton, D.R. Griffiths, R. Wenzel, R. Lantzy, and R. Stuetzle.Jack Bunton (Parsons Corp./USA)

* Getting Mixed Up with In Situ Soil Mixing. J. McDonough, A. Griffin, and A. Chwalibog.Jeff McDonough (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* In Situ Chemical Oxidation (ISCO) Soil Mixing: An Additional Measure Following Excavation Remedy Proposed for the Site. T. Andrews, M. Temple, and P. Kakarla.Thomas Andrews (In-Situ Oxidative Technologies, Inc. [ISOTEC]/USA)

* In Situ Soil Mixing of Lagoon Sludge, Brazil. B.E. Sciulli, F. Coelho, T. Pac, T. Moran, and I. Peter.Berguedof E. Sciulli (ERM/Brazil)

ISCR Treatment of 1,1,2 TCA via Soil Blending and Direct Injection at a Former Process-Water Holding Pond Area. T.V. Adams.Timothy V. Adams (Roux Associates, Inc./USA)

* Soil Mixing as a Cost-Effective Component of Achieving Site Closure. T.J. Simpkin and M. Fulkerson.Tom Simpkin (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Soil Mixing for Iron-Activated Persulfate Using Innovative Real-Time Evaluation. L. Zeng, S. Abrams, A. Ciblak, S. Damon, and S. Ueland.Stewart Abrams (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

Source Zone Remediation via Soil Mixing with ZVI and Bentonite: Past, Present, and Future. M.R. Olson and T.C. Sale.Mitchell Olson (Trihydro Corporation/USA)

Ten Years of Soil Mixing: Technology Applications, Advancements, and Lessons Learned. M. Fulkerson, T. Sale, and T. Simpkin.Monica Fulkerson (CH2M HILL/USA)


64

G9. Emerging Remediation TechnologiesPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Scott Noland (Remediation Products, Inc.) James Tarr (U.S. Navy)

Current States of In Situ Groundwater Remediation by Activated Carbon-Based Materials. D. Fan.Dimin Fan (U.S. EPA/USA)

Field Application of E-Redox Processes for Remediation of Groundwater Impacted by 1,4-Dioxane and Chloroethenes. S. Jin, P. Fallgren, and J. Eisenbeis.Song Jin (University of Wyoming/USA)

* Field Application of E-Redox Processes for Remediation of Groundwater Impacted by Perchlorate and Hexavalent Chromium. S. Jin, P. Fallgren, and J. Eisenbeis.Song Jin (University of Wyoming/USA)

* Field Applications of E-Redox Processes for Remediation of Groundwater Impacted by Trichloroethene. P. Fallgren, S. Jin, N. Smith, and D. Nguyen.Paul H. Fallgren (Advanced Environmental Technologies, LLC/USA)

* An Overview of Bioelectrochemical Effluent Remediation with MXC Equipped with Biocathodes. J.E. Borbolla-Gaxiola and H.M. Poggi-Varaldo.Hector M. Poggi-Varaldo (CINVESTAV del IPN/Mexico)

Potential Synergy between Abiotic and Biotic Degradation of a Broad Mix of Contaminants on an Activated Carbon Platform. S. Noland.Scott Noland (Remediation Products, Inc./USA)

* State-of-the-Art of Microbial Fuel Cell Technology for Remediation of Soils and Sediments. H.M. Poggi-Varaldo and K.B. Sánchez-López.Hector M. Poggi-Varaldo (CINVESTAV del IPN/Mexico)

* Surfactant Foam Technology for Enhanced Hydrogen Delivery In Plume Groundwater. J. Maire, A. Coyer, N. Fatin-Rouge, S. Colombano, C. Avril, A. Dumestre, A. Joubert, and D. Cazaux.Julien Maire (Université de Franche-Comté/France)

Surfactant Foam Technology for In Situ Remediation of Heavy Chlorinated-Compound DNAPLs. J. Maire, A. Coyer, N. Fatin-Rouge, S. Colombano, Q. Giraud, B. Paris, A. Dumestre, A. Joubert, P-Y. Klein, A. Triger, and D. Cazaux.Julien Maire (Université de Franche-Comté/France)

* Using Foam to Confine a Contaminant Source Zone: Laboratory and Field Experiments, Modeling. O. Atteia, C. Portois, H. Bertin, and E. Del Campo.Olivier Atteia (Bordeaux Polytechnical Institute/France)

H1. Real-Time Analysis ApproachesPlatforms Monday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Donald M. Cropek (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) Jennifer Kolbe (MWH Americas, Inc.)

* Advanced Methods to Overcome the Carry-Over Effects of the Membrane Interface Probe. J. Bumberger, K. Peisker, N. Reiche, D. Radny, and P. Dietrich.Jan Bumberger (UFZ—Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research/Germany)

Application of Field Screening for Low-Concentration Chlorinated Compounds in Groundwater. J. Lewandowski and M.S. Hall.Jason Lewandowski (OBG/USA)

* Assessing the Value of the MIP: Beyond its Use as a Reconnaissance Tool. M. Rossi, S.Pitkin, and M. Jordan.Michael Rossi (Stone Environmental, Inc./USA)

* Developing Mobile Solutions to Approach Real-Time Data Analysis. M.S. Raybuck.Mark Raybuck (Parsons Corp./USA)

* Development of a Contaminant Mass Recovery Model for Electrical Resistance Heating Sites from First Principles. D.A. Rountree, B.W. McGee, N. Jia, and K.G. Mumford.David Rountree (McMillan-McGee Corp./Canada)

Dynamic Real-Time Sampling and High-Resolution Site Characterization Using the FROG-4000 Portable Gas Chromatograph at Chlorinated Solvent Sites. D.F. Williamson.Dean Williamson (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Field-Based Analysis of Total Chlorinated Volatile Organic Halocarbons in Ex Situ Soil and Water Samples Using the Color-Tec Method. P. Kelso.Perry Kelso (Ecology and Environment, Inc./USA)

* Field-Deployable PFC Sensors for Contaminated Site Screening. L.D. Chen, C-Z. Lai, J. Thompson, and P. Buhlmann.Li Chen (United Science/USA)

How to Get the Most Out of On-Site, Real-Time Field Analyses. W.M. Davis, C.A. Horrell, and C.P. Antworth.William M. Davis (Triad Environmental Solutions, Inc./USA)

Hyperspectral Investigation of Trichloroethylene in Groundwater. M.D. Lewis, L. Newman, and A. Keith.Amy Keith (NASA/USA)

Real-Time and In Situ Monitoring of Aquatic Environments Using Indigenous Microbial, Community-Based Biosensors. J.-M. Monier, O. Sibourg, and T.M. Vogel.Timothy M. Vogel (University of Lyon/USA)


65

* Real-Time Monitoring of Trace Concentrations of Trichloroethylene and Perchloroethylene in Air. T. Rogers, J. Sears, and H. Huber.Todd Rogers (Columbia Basin College/USA)

Remote Groundwater Monitoring of a Mine Piezometer Field in Northern Nevada. C.T. Cottingham.Chris Cottingham (MWH Global/USA)

* Searching for Elusive Remnant Sources of TCE at Hill Air Force Base. T. Isakson, G. Colgan, J. Cox, and Q. Bingham.Todd Isakson (CH2M HILL/USA)

Versatile and Fast On Site Analytical Programs for Today’s High-Resolution Site Characterizations. M. Rossi.Michael Rossi (Stone Environmental, Inc./USA)

H2. Conceptual Site Model UpdatesPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Andrew Barton (Battelle) Ryan A. Wymore (CDM Smith, Inc.)

3-D Printed Conceptual Site Models: The Final Step in Visualizing Your Site. C.M. Ross, C.S. Martin, R. Siebenmann, and R.D. Walker.Chapman M. Ross (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

* 3-D Simulation of Soil Vapor Extraction. C. Fen and T. Chiang.Chiu-Shia Fen (Feng Chia University/Taiwan)

35 Years of Conceptual Site Model Evolution at the SRSNE Superfund Site. B.R. Thompson, M.J. Gefell, and B.H. Kueper.Bruce R. Thompson (de maximis, inc./USA)

* Applying Holistic, Site-Specific Hydrogeological Analyses in Place of Simplifying Assumptions. T. Champion.Tom Champion (AECOM/USA)

* Clarifying Conceptual Site Models with CSIA: Seeing a Path to Closure. P.W. McLoughlin, A.D. Peacock, and R.J. Pirkle.Pat McLoughlin (Pace Analytical Energy Services/USA)

Combining High-Resolution Site Characterization and 3-D Visualization to Optimize a Conceptual Site Model. L.G. Campbell, R. Subramanian, H.E. Erbele, S. Tekce, L. Kellndorfer, and N. Smith.Lisa Campbell (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

* Conceptual Site Model Improvement: Using Whole-Core Soil Sampling and Discrete Screen Wells. M.T. Riyis, H.L. Giacheti, M.T. Riyis, and R.R. Penha.Marcos T. Riyis (ECD Sondagens Ambientais/Brazil)

* Developing a Subsurface-Site Conceptual Model via Environmental Sequence Stratigraphy (ESS) Methods and Facies Models at Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque, NM, USA. C. Plank, T. Champion, M. Shultz, and J. Gillespie.Colin Plank (AECOM/USA)

* Enhancement of a Conceptual Site Model and Full-Scale Remedial Design Utilizing High-Resolution Data. K. Carr Green and A. Rees.Katharine Carr Green (AECOM/USA)

* Evolving the Conceptual Site Model in Real-Time: Getting the Most Out of High-Resolution Site Characterization. W.M. Davis, C.P. Antworth, and C.A. Horrell.William M. Davis (Triad Environmental Solutions, Inc./USA)

High-Resolution Mass Flux Conceptual Site Models: Advances and Applications. A. Gupta and K. Vangelder.Ankit Gupta (AECOM/USA)

Improving the Groundwater CSM through Application of Facies Models for Meandering Stream Deposits at Buckley AFB, Colorado, USA. M.R. Shultz and J. Gillespie.Mike Shultz (AECOM/USA)

* Mining Historic Data with Streamlined Characterization Produces Updated CSM That Leads to Reduced Liability Reserves. J. Guarnaccia, B. Horan, and R. Falotico.Brian Horan (Groundwater & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

* Overcoming Common but Unfamiliar Problems to Effectively Define/Remediate Volatile Chlorinated Solvents in Groundwater and Soils. E.A. Council and S.M. Council.Edward Augustus Council (Advanced Geologic Sciences, LLC/USA)

Upgrading the Conceptual Site Model at a Fractured-Bedrock DNAPL Site. E.C. Ashley and D.D. Folan.Ernest Ashley (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

* Using 3-D Modelling to Choose Among Several Conceptual Models at a Site Contaminated by Chlorinated Solvents. C. Portois and O. Atteia.Clément Portois (ENSEGID/France)

* Using Tracer Test Data to Calibrate a Groundwater-Flow and Solute-Transport Model. A. Bittner, J. Kondziolka, M. Sharma, P. Nangeroni, and R. McGrath.Andrew Bittner (Gradient Corporation/USA)

* Your Site Needs a 3-Dimensional Conceptual Site Model. J.C. Ruf.Jason C. Ruf (S2C2, Inc./USA)


66

H3. Advanced Investigation Tools and TechniquesPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Rob Danckert (Cascade Drilling, L.P.) Joseph A. Quinnan (ARCADIS U.S., Inc.)

Application of Optically Based Instrumentation for High-Temporal Resolution Monitoring of Contaminants in Surface Water. T. Martin, C. Jones, G. Chang, and F. Spada.Todd Martin (Integral Consulting, Inc./USA)

* Assessing the Representativeness of Soil-Coring Methods. M. Jordan, S. Pitkin, M. Rossi, E. Lutz, and T. Edwards.Michael Jordan (Stone Environmental, Inc./USA)

* Assessment of TCE and DNAPL Migration in a Karst System Using Geophysical Logging and Reactive-Liner Technologies. P.M. Hoefle, R.J. Karnauskas, and R.E. Wittenberg.Patrick M. Hoefle (Natural Resource Technology, Inc./USA)

CPT-Based Hydraulic Profiling Tool Able to Cope with Highly Permeable Media. E. Martac.Eugen Martac (Fugro Consult GmbH/Germany)

Evaluating Contaminant Migration in a Multiaquifer System: Results of a Tracer Test in a Glacial Till and Fractured Bedrock Regime. P. Nangeroni, R. McGrath, and A. Bittner.Rob McGrath (Woodard & Curran/USA)

* Evaluation of Preferential Groundwater Movement Pathway Using Background Fluorescence Analysis and Fluorescent Tracer Tests. R.W. Blackmer, J. Wilson, P.J. Stich, and C. Fausel.Richard Blackmer (Equipoise Corporation/USA)

* Forensic Analysis of NAPL Architecture at a Field Site Using the NAPL Depletion Model (NDM). G.R. Carey.Grant R. Carey (Porewater Solutions/Canada)

* HRMS Isotope Dilution Organochlorine Pesticide Analysis in Sediment with High Petroleum Content. B. Vining and A. Martin.Bryan Vining (SGS Environmental Services/USA)

LIF for Chlorinated DNAPL: Lessons Learned from a Commercial Application of DyeLIF. N.R.H. Welty, R. St.Germain, J.A. Quinna, and M.J. Gerdenich.Nicklaus R.H. Welty (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* Method for Fingerprinting Spatially and Temporally Commingled 1,1-DCE Plumes. B. Bond and M. Morris.Bob Bond (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

A Method for Using Full-Waveform Sonic Logging in Unconsolidated Formations to Determine a Continuous Estimate of Hydraulic Conductivity. G.B. Byer and J.A. Quinnan.Gregory Byer (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* A Novel Assessment and Strategy for Managing Complex Herbicide Mixtures and Degradation Compounds. P. Campbell, T. Carlson, K. Bradshaw, and S.D. Siciliano.Patrick Campbell (Amec Foster Wheeler, Inc./Canada)

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) Logging: Moving Beyond Conventional Approaches for Groundwater Investigations. M.S. Spurlin, B.W. Barker, B. Cross, C.E. Divine, and E. Grunewald.Matt Spurlin (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* Phytoforensics: High Density, Low Cost. J.L. Wilson, J. Schumacher, M.A. Limmer, and J.G. Burken.Jordan Wilson (U.S. Geological Survey and Missouri University of Science and Technology/USA)

* Progress on DIVER: Data Information Value to Evaluate Remediation. D.A. Reynolds, B.H. Kueper, K.M. Mumford, M.C. Kavanaugh, P. Kitanidis, and D. Major.David A. Reynolds (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./Canada)

* Releasing Unique Tracers in Multiple Locations to Understand Transport in a Complex Flow System. A.D. Fure, D. Quafisi, D. Putz, T. Vanage, R. Parthasarathy, and G. Barnuevo.Adrian Fure (Haley & Aldrich, Inc./USA)

H4. High-Resolution Site Characterization (HRSC)Platforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Eliot Cooper (Vironex Technical Services, LLC) Nathan W. Hagelin (Amec Foster Wheeler)

* Accelerated Groundwater Plume Delineation and Optimized Monitoring Well Installations Using High-Resolution Site Characterization Techniques. K. Simon, J. Eberharter, and P. Schiff.Ken Simon (Tetra Tech, Inc./USA)

* An Alternate and Multiuse Method to High-Resolution Site Characterization (HRSC). L.I. Robinson.Lance Robinson (EN Rx, Inc./USA)

Application of High-Resolution Site Characterization Data to Contaminant Mass and Volume Estimating. E. Mott-Smith, C. Butler, E. Spalvins, and H. Thornton.Ernest Mott-Smith (Black & Veatch/USA)


67

* Assessment of Dense Nonaqueous-Phase Liquid Mobility in the Subsurface at Manufactured Gas Plan Sites. D.W. Tomlinson, J.A. Clock, D.V. Nakles, N.A. Azzolina, G.R. Brubaker, A.D. Fure, and G.P. Wealthall.Derek W. Tomlinson (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Combining High-Resolution Site-Characterization Tools for VOC/PCB Conceptual Site Model Refinement. M. Wade and J. LeClair.Marilyn Wade (AECOM/USA)

* Correlation of Laser-Induced Fluorescence Results for Creosote DNAPL Sites. E. Mott-Smith, C. Butler, R. St. Germain, and H. Thornton.Ernest Mott-Smith (Black & Veatch/USA)

* CVOC Source-Area Characterization Using the Membrane Interface Probe: Ten Years of Success, Failure and Everything In-Between. R.M. Ruf, J.C. Ruf, and T.Koester.Richard Matthew Ruf (S2C2, Inc./USA)

The Development of High-Resolution Site Characterization (HRSC) Methods to Delineate DNAPL at the Groundwater Surface Water Interface in Shallow Sediments. G. Wealthall, D. Thorson, and D. Thomlinson.Gary P. Wealthall (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./Canada)

Fluorescence Tracing Techniques Applied for Preferential Groundwater Flow Identification in the Hazardous Waste Landfill in Kolliken, Switzerland. M.H. Otz, R. Kocher, I. Otz, and B. Müller.Martin H. Otz (Nano Trace Technologies/Switzerland)

High-Resolution Site Characterization (HRSC) in Brazil: Comparing MIP with Combined Tools in a PCE Source-Zone Architecture Definition. M.T. Riyis, H.L. Giacheti, and M.T. Riyis.Marcos T. Riyis (ECD Sondagens Ambientais/Brazil)

* High-Resolution Site Characterization (HRSC) of a Complex CVOC-Impacted Site in Sao Paulo, Brazil. M. Singer, P. Santos, J. Fiacco, E. Tsuruoka, D. Carvalho, R. Francioso, F. Isqueirdo, M. Einarson, P. Bennett, C. Payne, T. Ketron, and J. Chu.Miguel Singer (ERM/Brazil)

High-Resolution Site Characterization of Stored vs. Mobile Dissolved Contamination Using Saturated Soil and Groundwater Sampling. W.M. Davis, C.P. Antworth, J.A. Quinnan, and N.R.H. Welty.William M. Davis (Triad Environmental Solutions, Inc./USA)

In Situ Fracturing Analysis Using the High-Resolution Injection Tool for Design Optimization of Sodium Permanganate Injection. J. Soukup, S. Wisher, and E. Cooper.Scott Wisher (Vironex Technical Services, LLC/USA)


New Combined High-Resolution Site Characterization Tool for Light and Dense Nonaqueous-Phase Liquid Distribution. D.W. Tomlinson, G.P. Wealthall, D.M. Thorson, R. St. Germain, and S. Adamek.Derek W. Tomlinson (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

* The New, Reverse-Head Profiling Technique Using a Flexible Liner. C. Keller.Carl Keller (Flexible Liner Underground Technologies/USA)

A New Way of Investigating Sites: Smart Characterization. N.R.H. Welty, J.A. Quinnan, A. Yanites, and D.T. Rogers.Nicklaus R.H. Welty (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* Probabilistic Mapping of Residual Mass of DNAPL in Soil: Geostatistical Assessment of Analytical Results and High-Resolution Data. V.V. Sewaybricker, H.V. Borgo de Oliveira, and R.O. Coelho.Victor Vanin Sewaybricker (Geoklock Consultoria e Engenharia Ambiental Ltda./Brazil)

* Real-Time Plume Delineation Using Low-Level MIHPT (LL-MIHPT). M.T. Front, G.S. Janniche, C. Riis, A.G. Christensen, D. Pipp, N. Hamburger, and P. Johansen.Malene Tørnqvist Front (NIRAS A/S/Denmark)

* Reducing Treatment Costs by Optimizing a Combined Remedy Using Traditional Techniques and High-Resolution Site Characterization. S. Thompson, A. Montgomery, W. Law, R. Wymore, J. Jenkins, C. King, and G. Bennett.Shanna Thompson (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Semiquantitative High-Resolution Site Characterization Techniques for Phase II Due Diligence Audits. P.H. Dijkshoorn.Pieter Dijkshoorn (ERM/Belgium)

* Three-Phase Site Characterization: High-Resolution Site Characterization of Soil, Groundwater, and Vapor. W.M. Davis, C.P. Antworth, C.A. Horrell, and J. Wright.William M. Davis (Triad Environmental Solutions, Inc./USA)

* Use of High-Resolution Site Characterization to Delineate a Mixed Contaminant Plume in Fractured Bedrock. R. Darlington, A. Barton, B. Murray, and J. Tarr.Ramona Darlington (Battelle/USA)

* Using Stratigraphic Flux Analysis to Improve Remedy Selection. P.J. Curry, J.A. Quinnan, and N.R.H. Welty.Patrick Curry (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

68

H5. Applying Geologic Concepts to HydrogeologyPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Rick Cramer (AECOM) Herbert Levine (U.S. EPA)

* Application of Sequence Stratigraphy for More Effective Risk Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sites. M. Einarson and C. Payne.Murray D. Einarson (Haley & Aldrich, Inc./USA)

Cumulative Structural Frequency Analysis of Fractured Bedrock in Conceptual Site Models and Remedial Design. K. Leahy.Kevin Leahy (ERM/United Kingdom)

Design Verification Program: Lessons Learned from Preapplication Assessments at In Situ Remediation Sites. C. Sandefur, C. Lee, and S. Barnes.Craig Sandefur (Regenesis/USA)

High-Resolution Characterization of Bedrock Surface Morphology: Tools and Techniques Applied to Site Remediation. W.C. Brandon.Bill Brandon (U.S. EPA/USA)

Hydraulically Calibrated Sequence Stratigraphy for Improved Hydrogeologic Unit Delineation in Fractured Sedimentary Rocks. J.R. Meyer, B.L. Parker, E. Arnaud, and A.C. Runkel.Jessica R. Meyer (University of Guelph/Canada)

A Practical Guide to Environmental Sequence Stratigraphy and Facies Models: Overview of 2016 EPA Groundwater Issue Paper. M.R. Shultz, R. Cramer, and H. Levine.Mike Shultz (AECOM/USA)

Sequence Stratigraphy Based Development of Conceptual Hydrogeological Model for Puente Valley, California. T. Perina.Tomas Perina (CB&I Federal Services, LLC/USA)

Value Added through Application of Environmental Sequence Stratigraphy Methods on Groundwater Sites: An AFCEC Perspective. M.R. Shultz and J. Gillespie.John Gillespie (U.S. Air Force/USA)

H6. Use of Passive SamplersPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChair: AmyMarie Accardi-Dey (The Louis Berger Group, Inc.)

Application of In Situ Porewater Technology at a Contaminated Sediment Site to Assess Recontamination from VOC- and PCB-Impacted Groundwater. A. Accardi-Dey, L. Warner, E. Dudek, K. Goldstein, P.M. Gschwend, J. MacFarlane, M. Austin, A. Darpinian, and J. Lyon.AmyMarie Accardi-Dey (The Louis Berger Group, Inc./USA)

Application of Passive Diffusion Bag Samplers at a Former Dry Cleaner. J.C. Brown.Jesse C. Brown (Golder Associates, Inc./USA)

Direct Passive Sampling Approach for 2-D and 3-D Assessment of Contaminant Mass Discharge in Groundwater. H. de Jonge, L.T. Karlby, T.H. Jørgensen, N. Muchitsch, L. Jørgensen, H. Overgaard, and N. Tuxen.Hubert de Jonge (Sorbisense A/S/Denmark)

* Passive Sampling for Measuring the Availability of Hydrophobic Organic Chemicals: The End-User Perspective. J. Conder, M. Vanderkooy, J. Thompson, C. Thomas, and J. Roberts.Jason Conder (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

Think Analyzing Soil Samples will Accurately Characterize a Site for Chlorinated Contaminant Source Areas? Think Again. H. O’Neill, S. Thornley, and R. Schneider.Harry O’Neill (Beacon Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

H7. Compound-Specific Isotope AnalysisPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChair: Peter Bennett (Haley & Aldrich, Inc.)

* 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) Attenuation at a Complex Site. P.G. Koster van Groos, P.B. Hatzinger, S. Streger, M. Amdurer, T. Kuder, and R.P. Philp.Paul G. Koster van Groos (CB&I Federal Services, LLC/USA)

* Assessing the Impacts of Groundwater Solutes on the Reactivity of Pd-Fe Bimetallic Nanoparticles Using Carbon Isotope Fractionation. Y.L. Han, C.J. Liu, J. Horita, and W.L. Yan.Yanlai Han (Texas Tech University/USA)

Carbon and Chlorine Isotope Fractionation during Anaerobic Biodegradation of 1,2-Dichloroethane by Dehalococcoides Populations. J. Palau, R. Yu, O. Shouakar-Stash, D.L. Freedman, R. Aravena, M. Elsner, and D. Hunkeler.Orfan Shouakar-Stash (Isotope Tracer Technologies, Inc./Canada)


69

Carbon Isotopic Enrichment during Sequential Chlorinated Ethene Dehalogenation. M.-Y.J. Chu and P. Bennett.Peter Bennett (Haley & Aldrich, Inc./USA)

* Closed-Loop Purge-and-Trap and 2D-GC for Compound-Specific Isotope Analysis of VOC Contaminants: Design and Examples of Applications. T. Kuder and R.P. Philp.Tomasz Kuder (University of Oklahoma/USA)

* Compound-Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA) Evaluation of Slow-Release Permanganate Cylinders (SRPC). G. Smith and Y. Wang.Gregory Smith (ERM/USA)

* Compound-Specific Isotope Analysis of Remediation Mechanisms during In Situ Thermal Treatment. G. Smith, C. Thomas, and Y. Wang.Gregory Smith (ERM/USA)

* Compound-Specific Isotope Analysis to Evaluate Abiotic Degradation of TCE in a Bedrock Aquifer. A.D. Fure, G. Barnuevo, P.J. Bennett, and D. Putz.Adrian Fure (Haley & Aldrich, Inc./USA)

Compound-Specific Isotope Evaluation to Assess Effectiveness of ISCO Pilot Test in Fractured Sedimentary Rock. W. LeFevre, M. Bower, B. Parker, J. Cherry, A. Pierce, S. Borchert, and K. Murdock.William LeFevre (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Innovative Isotopic and Microbiological Tools for Natural Attenuation Assessment of Monochlorobenzene at a Complex Contaminated Site. L. Alberti, M. Marchesi, I. Pietrini, T. Stella, A. Franzetti, F. DeFerra, G. Carpani, G. Bianchi, R. Aravena, J. Palau, and O. Shouakar-Stash.Massimo Marchesi (Politecnico di Milano/Italy)

* Latest Advancement in Employing Chlorine CSIA in Organic Contaminant Studies. O. Shouakar-Stash.Orfan Shouakar-Stash (Isotope Tracer Technologies, Inc./Canada)

Overcoming Analytical Limitations of Compound-Specific Isotope Analysis in Studies of VOC Contaminants. T. Kuder and R.P. Philp.Tomasz Kuder (University of Oklahoma/USA)

* Stable Isotope Probing to Evaluate Benzene-Degrading Amendments versus Monitored Natural Attenuation. E. Schwartz, G. Gunderson, and B. Kettman.Elizabeth Schwartz (TRC/USA)

* Use of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Chlorine Stable Isotopes to Evaluate Anaerobic Degradation of Chlorobenzene and Benzene. C.S. Mowder, W. LeFevre, K. McCord, J. Raphael, R. Casselberry, G. Martin, and T. Tambling.Carol S. Mowder (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Where Did That Salt and That Methane Come From? Fingerprinting Methods and Examples in Discriminating between Sources. D. Reynolds and M. Vanderkooy.David A. Reynolds (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./Canada)

H8. Incorporation of Molecular Tools in Site AssessmentPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Kate Kucharzyk (Battelle) Dora Ogles (Microbial Insights, Inc.)

* Abundance and Activity of Aerobic Vinyl Chloride Degraders in Contaminated Groundwater. Y. Liang and T.E. Mattes.Yi Liang (The University of Iowa/USA)

The ABR System for Sustainable Treatment of Chlorinated VOCs: Connecting Treatment Efficiency and Microbial Community Structure. J.H. Pardue, F.R. Symmes, L.M. Pipkin, V.K. Elango, M. Worthy, and M.P. Last.John Pardue (Louisiana State University/USA)

Activity-Based Protein Profiling for the Detection, Identification, and Quantification of Active Bacterial Monooxygenases in Environmental Samples. K. Bennett, W. Chen, M. Hyman, C. Smith, W. Chrisler, N. Sadler, A. Wright, and C. Yeager.Chris Yeager (Los Alamos National Laboratory/USA)

* The Application of Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) for Rapid Detection of vcrA, bvcA, and tceA in Groundwater Samples. Y.H. Kanitkar, R.D. Stedtfeld, S.A. Hashsham, P.B. Hatzinger, and A.M. Cupples.Yogendra Kanitkar (Michigan State University/USA)

Application of Stable Isotope Probing and qPCR Gene Assays as U.S. EPA Lines of Evidence for MNA. J.T. Wilson.John Wilson (Scissortail Environmental Solutions, LLC/USA)

* Characterization of Biomass Present and Active within Treatment Fluidized-Bed Reactors. M.H. Lee, E.A. Cordova, S.M. Brooks, S.D. Saurey, J.W. Morad, B.B. Christiansen, W.L. Garcia, M.A. Carlson, and B.D. Lee.M. Hope Lee (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory/USA)

* Dehalococcoides mccartyi Nitrogenase Expression Indicates Fixed-Nitrogen Limitation. D. Kaya, K. Chourey, R. Hettich, D. Ogles, and F. Loeffler.Devrim Kaya (University of Tennessee/USA)

Dynamics of a Chlorinated Solvent-Degrading Microbial Community during Low-Temperature In Situ Heating. T.W. Macbeth, D. Giaudrone, R. Chichakli, N. Smith, K. Kunas, C. Cora, and K. Lynch.Tamzen Macbeth (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)


70

* Ecology and Evolution of Vinyl Chloride-Oxidizing Bacteria in Contaminated Groundwater. T.E. Mattes, X. Liu, and Y. Liang.Timothy Mattes (University of Iowa/USA)

* Effect of Tetrabromobisphenol A on Anaerobic Sludge Microbial Communities and Identification of Taxa Responsible for Its Degradation. E. Lefevre, E. Cooper, H.M. Stapleton, and C.K. Gunsch.Emilie Lefevre (Duke University/USA)

* Evaluation of Anaerobic Benzene Biodegradation for Monitored Natural Attenuation Using Innovative Microbiological Tools. D. Collins and G. Upson.David Collins (MWH Americas, Inc./USA)

* Microbial Adaptation to Vinyl Chloride in Groundwater Microcosms as Revealed by Metagenomics and Other Molecular Tools. X. Liu, T.E. Mattes, F. Paes, and A.M. Cupples.Xikun Liu (The University of Iowa/USA)

* Microbial Social Networks in Contaminated Environments. S. Cecillon and T.M. Vogel.Sebastien Cecillon (Ecole Centrale de Lyon/France)


Molecular Biology, Metanomics and Bioinformatics Applications for Soil and Groundwater Bioremediation Management. T.M. Vogel.Timothy Vogel (Universite de Lyon/France)

Molecular Characterization to Refine Conceptual Site Model and Assess Remedy Effectiveness. S. Fiorenza, S. Lummus, and J. Nyall.Stephanie Fiorenza (BP/USA)

* TceA of Dehalococcoides mccartyi is a Vinyl Chloride-Reductive Dehalogenase. J. Yan, Y. Yang, B. Simsir, K. Chourey, R.L. Hettich, and F.E. Loeffler.Jun Yan (University of Tennessee/USA)

* The Use of Bacterial Genetic Tests in Relation to Bioremediation of Contaminated Soil and Groundwater. K.B. Soerensen and H. Bengtsson.Ketil B. Soerensen (Ramboll/Denmark)

Use of Metaproteomics for Detection of Peptides Involved in In Situ Degradation of Contaminants. C. Bartling, K.H. Kucharzyk, and L. Mullins.Craig Bartling (Battelle/USA)

71

Monday, May 23, 201612:35–1:50 p.m.

In Situ Thermal Remediation at the SRSNE Superfund Site—Meeting Regulatory Requirements and Removing 225,000 kg of VOCs from an Overburdened NAPL Source Zone

Moderator: Gorm Heron (TerraTherm)

Panelists:Eva Davis (U.S. EPA)

Mike Gefell (Anchor QEA)

John LaChance (ARCADIS)

Robin Swift (TerraTherm)

Bruce Thompson (de maximis, inc.)

Description: This panel will address key issues and lessons learned in implementing in situ thermal remediation (ISTR) at a very high mass (multi-component LNAPL/DNAPL), multi-PRP Superfund Site (43,300 m3 heated, 225,000 kg VOCs removed resulting in 99.7% removal from soils). The panel will introduce the following: 1) site

background; 2) ISTR selection for cleanup of the overburdened NAPL zone; 3) establishing cleanup levels and demonstration of compliance criteria; 4) NAPL zone delineation and in-place VOC mass estimate; 5) designing ex situ vapor treatment for significant VOC loading; 6) drilling and monitoring methods to minimize the potential for downward NAPL migration; 7) strategy and approach for redesign and expansion of horizontal and vertical extent of treatment based on data acquired during installation of the ISTR wellfield; 8) challenges in system operation and monitoring and measuring mass extraction for a multicomponent/high fuel value NAPL site; 9) identifying an appropriate endpoint using multiple lines of evidence to confirm achievement of remedy clean up goals (NAPL removal); 10) the importance of routine, detailed, and collaborative communications and sharing of data with all stakeholders (project coordinator, technical oversight team, PRP group, thermal vendor and regulators) throughout the process; 11) and post-treatment effects on groundwater quality within and downgradient of the treatment zone. The panel will then respond to audience questions.

PANEL DISCUSSIONS

Monday, May 23, 20162:15–3:55 p.m.

China’s Emerging Remediation Business, Soon to be One of the World’s Largest

Moderator:Linfeng Liu (*Yonker North America and IST)

Panelists:

Wenchao Zang (Solid Waste and Chemicals Management Center, Ministry of Environmental Protection, People’s Republic of China)

Tianwe Ll (Appraisal Center for Environment & Engineering, Ministry of Environmental Protection, People’s Republic of China)

Hengyuan Ll (Department of Policies, Laws, and Regulations, Ministry of Environmental Protection, People’s Republic of China)

Tao Wu (Honeywell International)

Description: Following more than 35 years of unprecedented economic and industrial expansion, China now recognizes that one consequence is extensive contamination. An official joint report issued by the Ministry of Environmental Protection of China and the Ministry of Land and Resources of China in April 2014 stated that about 16% of China’s soil and 19% of its farming land are polluted, and “the main pollution source is human industrial and agricultural activities”. According to the report, much of the polluted land is contaminated by inorganic materials, with top three pollutants being cadmium, nickel, and arsenic. The Chinese government is in the process of implementing regulations and practices to ensure contaminated sites are remediated to safe levels for sustainable reuse. A Xinhua News Agency (the official news agency of China) article estimates that the market value of soil remediation will be over RMB 680 billion (USD ~$100 billion) by 2020. As China’s remediation business matures, both the Chinese government and industry are eager to understand environmental technologies, practices, and lessons learned from the U.S., Europe and other regions, where solutions to contaminated water and land are being implemented. This session will allow both Chinese leaders and other international technical and business leaders to exchange knowledge and ideas regarding worldwide soil remediation successes in order to facilitate understanding of China’s growing environmental market needs.

Reference articles:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/indepth/2014-04/17/c_133270984.htm

http://dz.jjckb.cn/www/pages/webpage2009/html/2014-02/24/content_86727.htm?div=-1

* Yonker is one of China’s few listed soil remediation companies that is approved by the Ministry of Environmental

Protection for remediation work.

Tuesday, May 24, 20168:00–9:40 a.m.

Complex Site Remediation at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico

Moderator:

Ramona Darlington, Ph.D. (Battelle)

Panelists:

Bruce Alleman, Ph.D. (Noblis)

Adria Bodour, Ph.D. (AFCEC)

Paul Hatzinger, Ph.D. (CB&I)

Tara Kunkel, B.S. (CB&I)

Dennis McQuillan, M.S. (New Mexico Environment Department)

Colin Plank, M.S. (AECOM)

Rick Sheen, B.S. (Albuquerque Bernalillo County, Water Utility Authority)

Description: The Bulk Fuel Facility (BFF) at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico, is a top priority in the Air Force’s Installation Restoration Program. The site was impacted by slow release of jet fuels that included aviation gasoline, JP-4 and JP-8 formulations. The releases introduced contaminants of concern including ethylene dibromide (EDB) from the aviation gasoline, and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and o-, m-, and p-xylenes into the vadose zone and groundwater. Site complexities include the approximate 500 foot depth of the water table, the lithology comprised of alluvial deposits overlying fluvial deposits from the ancestral Rio Grande River, and the amount of fuel released and the potential presence of residual nonaqueous phase liquid (NAPL) trapped below the water table, in the form of EDB, which is considered an emerging contaminant and has a maximum contaminant level (MCL} of 0.05 µg/L.

72

73

The recent attention given to remediation of complex sites has focused the efforts of better site characterization to develop detailed conceptual site models necessary to effectively screen remedial technologies, formulate remedial approaches that can include multiple technologies applied simultaneously or in series to different environmental media, to establish achievable cleanup goals, or to determine if and when a technical impracticability waiver is warranted. The panel will focus on the site characterizations and remedial approaches that have been, are being, and will be applied at the site. The panel will begin with a 25-minute overview of the different aspects of the BFF remedial effort to date before the panel is open to discussions among the panelists and the audience. The panelists will answer questions from the audience with respect to the importance and the value of the remedial approaches, the working relationships between the Air Force and regulators, and the interactions with stakeholders and the public for moving the BFF program forward towards completion.

Tuesday, May 24, 201610:30 a.m.–12:10 p.m.

1,4-Dioxane’s Emerging Dilemma: What’s a Remediation Manager Supposed to Do?

Moderators:

Dora Chiang (AECOM)

Erin Mack (DuPont)

Panelists:

Hunter Anderson (AFCEC)

Shaily Mahendra (UCLA)

Thomas Mohr (Santa Clara Valley Water District)

Suthan Suthersan (ARCADIS)

Michael Wilken (DOW Chemical)

John Wilson (Scissortail Environment)

Description: The third round of drinking water sampling for U.S. EPA’s Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Requirements has revealed that more than 11% of America’s drinking water sources have detectable concentrations of 1,4-dioxane, and 3% exceed the U.S. EPA’s Health Advisory Level. These findings, coupled with a revised cancer slope factor, have led several states to lower groundwater cleanup criteria for 1,4-dioxane. This trend towards lower 1,4-dioxane cleanup goals will likely continue. As a result, remediation will be required at many more solvent release sites to address 1,4-dioxane. Cleanup will be challenging because 1,4-dioxane is often commingled with VOCs and most technologies

that target VOCs are not effective for 1,4-dioxane removal. Design, implementation, and verification of effective remedies at 1,4-dioxane-contaminated sites will be dependent upon well-developed site conceptual models that are based on collection of reliable chemical, geological and biological data. Natural attenuation, biostimulation and bioaugmentation alone or in combination with other remedies show some promise in the laboratory, but still need to be further demonstrated at the field scale. The panel will discuss what a remediation manager should know about policies, regulations, latest developments on site characterization, the wide range of 1,4-dioxane sources, analytical methods, treatment technologies and what research priorities are essential BEFORE properly and reliably defining the criteria for selecting remedial options (e.g., when might MNA remedies be appropriate and when might advanced oxidation technologies be necessary and when these technologies might be combined).

Wednesday, May 25, 201610:05-11:45 a.m.

Pump-and-Treat Exit Strategy: Assessing Whether, When and How to Make a Change

Moderator:Kira Lynch (U.S. EPA)

Panelists:

Dave Becker, PG (Environmental and Munitions Center of Expertise [EMCX] of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE])

Tom Blackman (Lockheed Martin)

Kathy Davies (Optimization Liaison with the U.S. EPA Region 3)

Arun Gavaskar (U.S. Navy, NAVFAC EXWC)

Tamzen W. Macbeth, Ph.D., PE (CDM Smith)

Michael J. Truex (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory)

Description: Numerous pump-and-treat (P&T) systems have been applied for groundwater remediation. How well are they working? Would another remedy approach be better? Is it the right time for a change? These questions are relevant to developing an exit strategy for P&T remediation. The panel will provide perspectives on the process of assessing P&T remedy performance and determining the appropriate next step for a site: closure, optimization, or remedy transition. In particular, the discussion will focus on issues, challenges, and supporting technical data/approaches that are important to this process. A

synopsis of a recently published P&T performance assessment document will be introduced as a starting point for these discussions. The moderator will pose a series of questions to the panel about decision processes, technical elements, and viable approaches for conducting a P&T remedy assessment. These discussions will be followed by an opportunity for audience questions.

Wednesday, May 25, 20162:15–3:55 p.m.

Programmatic Challenges Related to the PFAS Emerging Contaminant Class

Moderator:

Cornel Long (AFCEC)

Panelists:

Richard Grace (AXYS Analytical Services Ltd.)

Phil Goodrum, Ph.D. (Integral Consulting Inc.)

Shalene Thomas (Amec Foster Wheeler)

Hunter Anderson, Ph.D. (AFCEC)

Michelle Crimi, Ph.D. (Clarkson University)

Description: Per- and polyfluorinated alkylated substances (PFAS) were used in a wide range of industrial applications from water proofing and protective coatings for textiles, preservatives, food packaging, hydraulic oils, cosmetics, floor wax, polish, paint, and lacquer as well as fire-fighting foams (aqueous film-forming foam [AFFF]) and are ubiquitous in the environment. The threat to public health and the environment is of increasing concern; the toxicology and regulatory framework is unfolding.

The panel will discuss this emerging contaminant class and associated progress and challenges in the disciplines of analytical chemistry, fate and transport, remediation, regulatory policy, and toxicology over recent history and looking forward. We will look at what is unique about this contaminant class and how the disciplines interact to work toward a common goal of protection of human health and the environment.

Thursday, May 26, 20168:00–9:40 a.m.

A Focus on Geology for Improved Remediation Decision-Making

Moderators:

Rick Cramer (AECOM)

Jim Cummings (U.S. EPA)

Panelists:

John Gillespie, JD (Air Force Civil Engineer Center)

John Izbicki, Ph.D. (USGS)

Herb Levine, M.S. (U.S. EPA)

Jessica Meyer, Ph.D. (University of Guelph)

Fred Payne, Ph.D. (ARCADIS)

Mike Shultz, Ph.D. (AECOM)

Description: Recent developments show that more effective use of geological information results in improved remedial decision-making. In what is hoped will be a highly interactive session involving panelists and the audience, speakers will share their perspectives and experiences. We will seek feedback on some of the opportunities—and challenges—associated with bringing desirable improvements into common practice.

So check your Unified Soil Classification System at the door and bring high expectations on what improved geoscience can bring to the groundwater remediation practice.

Thursday, May 26, 201610:05–11:45 a.m.

Vapor Intrusion at the U.S. EPA Indianapolis Duplex: Exploring the Role of Conventional Vapor Migration versus a Sewer Preferential Pathway

Moderator:

Bart Eklund (AECOM)

Panelists:

Chase Holton (CH2M Hill)

Chris Lutes (CH2M Hill)

Thomas McHugh (GSI Environmental)

Robert Truesdale (Research Triangle Institute)

Rob Uppencamp (ARCADIS)

74

75

Description: The U.S. EPA Vapor Intrusion Research Duplex in Indianapolis has been intensively studied since 2011 in order to obtain an improved understanding of the mechanisms of vapor intrusion and associated spatial and temporal variability. Over this investigation period, VOC concentrations have been measured in indoor air, wall space, sub-slab, soil gas, and groundwater. Other measurements have included radon, tracer gas, weather conditions, groundwater elevation, and numerous other parameters. In addition, the research team has evaluated the effects of building manipulations including internal temperature, building pressure, and sub-slab depressurization.

Despite the intensive research program, there remains some uncertainty regarding the importance of a sewer preferential pathway for transport of VOCs from the source to the building foundation. At other sites, sewers have been shown to affect vapor intrusion at various scales from neighborhood to building. This panel will explore the evidence for conventional vapor intrusion (i.e., diffusion from groundwater and through the vadose zone) as the primary transport mechanism for PCE vapor intrusion and the evidence for a sewer preferential pathway as the primary transport mechanism. We will discuss mathematical methods, such as that of Guo (2015) to address this question. The panel will also discuss the implications of the transport mechanism on interpretation of other research findings and will address how to evaluate the transport mechanism at other sites as part of a more typical (i.e., more limited) vapor intrusion investigation.

Thursday, May 26, 201612:10–1:50p.m.

Advances in Injectable Activated Carbon

Moderators:

Bruce K. Marvin, P.E. (Geosyntec Consultants)

Claire F. Wildman, Ph.D., P.E. (Geosyntec Consultants)

Panelists:

Tom Fox (Colorado Division of Oil and Public Safety)

Richard Luthy, Ph.D. (Stanford University)

Scott Noland (Remediation Products, Inc.)

Scott Wilson (Regenesis)

Edward Winner (Kentucky UST Program)

Description: A number of injectable activated carbon products are commercially available for remediation of chlorinated and recalcitrant compounds in groundwater. These products have been used successfully to close sites with a broad range of geologic conditions although limited fundamental research has been published regarding the modes of action and success criteria. A primary mechanism for remediation by injectable activated carbon is typically described as adsorption, however claims and critiques of the roles of secondary and parallel modes of action, including biodegradation or abiotic degradation, has led to advances in this class of remediation amendments. Observations of initially rapid contaminant removal from groundwater, as well as limited contaminant rebound in the medium term, has complicated the interpretation of field performance. Further, some practitioners have raised concerns that the injection and delivery processes can further confound the interpretation of medium- to long-term field results.

This panel will discuss the advances in and fundamental understanding of remediation with injectable activated carbon, the engineering requirements including dose and field application methods and the relative roles of contaminant stabilization on activated carbon versus treatment via secondary mass loss mechanisms. The panel was assembled with members from the remediation product community, regulatory professionals with a unique depth of experience and the academic community to provide the broad range of panelist perspectives and address audience questions over this emerging class of innovative remediation products. The panelists will each provide a brief summary of data from numerous sites where the products have been used before addressing questions from the moderators and the audience.

SHORT COURSES

SUNDAY, MAY 22, 20168:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.

v An Introduction to Direct Push Logging Methods and Log Interpretation for Consultants and Regulators (page 77)

v Use of the Free iPHT3D Interface for Reactive Transport Modelling Applied to Contaminated Groundwater (page 78)

v Site Applications of Geostatistics and Time Series Analysis: Sample Design to Site Closure (page 78)

v Near Real-Time High Resolution Site Characterization (HRSC): What, Why, and How (page 79)

v State-of-the-Art Approach for Evaluating Monitored Natural Attenuation (Biological and Abiotic), Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation (page 80)

8:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

v Passive No-Purge Sampling and Other Cost-Effective Tools to Reduce and Manage Monitoring Variability (page 81)

v Short-Term Action Levels for Trichoroethylene: The Disconnect between Perception and Reality (page 81)

v Green and Sustainable Remediation Boot Camp: Preparing for Success (page 82)

v Introduction to Groundwater Remediation Geochemistry (page 83)

1:00-5:00 p.m.

v Embedding Sustainable Safety from Design to Operation of Remediation Systems at Operational Facilities (page 84)

v Cryogenic Core Collection: New Tools for Characterizing Sites and Assessing Remediation Performance (page 84)

v Integrated DNAPL Site Characterization (page 85)

TUESDAY, MAY 24, 20162:00– 6:00 p.m.

v Design and Application of Horizontal Remediation Wells (page 86)

v Overcoming Common but Difficult Issues Impacting Soil Gas Assessments through to Mitigating Vapor Intrusion Issues (page 86)

v Performance Assessment of SVE and P&T Systems to Support Remedy Transition or Closure Decisions (page 87)

v The Utilization of Stable Isotopes in Evaluating the Origin and Fate of Chlorinated and Other Recalcitrant Organic Compounds in the Environment (page 88)

76

Sunday, May 22, 20168:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.(1-hour break at noon for lunch on own)

An Introduction to Direct Push Logging Methods and Log Interpretation for Consultants and Regulators

Instructors:Doug Koehler, DI Logging Specialist (Geoprobe Systems)Dan Pipp, Chemist and MIP Logging Specialist (Geoprobe Systems)Wes McCall, PG (Geoprobe Systems)Tom Christy, PE (Geoprobe Systems)

Objective: This course will provide an introduction to the equipment and methods used to obtain electrical conductivity (EC), hydraulic profiling tool (HPT) and membrane interface probe (MIP) logs in unconsolidated formations with direct push techniques. Participants will then use the DI Viewer software to review each log type and learn the basics of log interpretation and how they can be used to create cross sections to develop effective conceptual site models (CSMs). The potential audience will include site managers, engineers, geologists, environmental scientists as well as state and federal regulators involved in site investigations and remedial investigations.

Overview: Direct push (DP) logging tools are advanced into unconsolidated formations to learn about formation lithology, hydrostratigraphy and VOC distribution. Participants will be introduced to the equipment required to run three types of DP logs, basics of QA testing, log interpretation and use of logs to develop CSMs. EC logs are useful in defining lithology and formation permeability under many conditions and may be used to track ionic contaminant plumes. The HPT injects water into the formation through a screened port on the side of the probe. The pressure required to inject the water is plotted onscreen to provide a log of relative formation permeability. The combined EC and HPT pressure logs are very useful for defining lithology, hydrostratigraphy and migration pathways. The MIP is designed with a semipermeable membrane on the side of the probe. Nitrogen carrier gas picks up VOCs coming across the membrane and flows up the trunkline to gas chromatography (GC) detectors at the surface. Multiple detector responses are plotted versus depth on the MIP log to define the vertical distribution of VOC contaminants. The advantages and limitations of each logging method will be discussed. A new optical probe for the detection and logging of LNAPLs will be introduced and application of the updated HPT-Groundwater Profiler will be reviewed. Log viewing software will be used during the course to plot logs, interpret logs and create cross sections with the logs to develop CSMs.

Outline:

1. Introduction and DP logging basics (install DI Viewer software)

2. Electrical Conductivity (EC) Logging

3. Introduction to the DI Viewer software

4. Hydraulic Profiling Tool (HPT) Logging

5. Plotting an HPT Log—dissipation tests, potentiometric profile, corrected HPT pressure, estimated K

6. Membrane Interface Probe (MIP) Logging

7. Plotting an MIP log—using multiple detectors for interpretation; MIP cross section and interpretation

8. Combined MIP and HPT (MiHpt) Logging: A field example

9. Low Level MIP Logging—a new optical probe for LNAPL and the HPT-Groundwater Sampling System

Laptops are recommended for this course, but not required.

Register online at www.battelle.org/chlorcon.Prospective attendees should register by March 7, 2016. If insufficient registrations have been received for a given course by that date, the course will be canceled, and registrants will have the option of transferring to other courses or having their fees refunded.Maximum discounts apply to fees paid by March 7. Course registrations will be accepted as long as space is available. Registration cancellations received by March 31 will be refunded less a $10 service fee. Cancellations after March 31 will not be refunded, but paid no-shows will receive all course materials. Substitutions will be accepted at any time, preferably with advance notice. Course materials will include the instructors’ presentation slides and other supporting materials as appropriate to the course, such as references from the literature, reprints, files or publicly available software.

77

78


Use of the Free iPHT3D Interface for Reactive Transport Modelling Applied to Contaminated Groundwater

Instructors:Olivier Atteia (Bordeaux University [INP])

Objective: This course will explain how to build a reactive transport model with iPHT3D and run different types of models (Modflow, MT3DMS, PHT3D, SeaWat, SUTRA, MIN3P, OpenGeoSys). This interface is specifically intended for chemistry. The potential audience includes professionals, code developers and teachers.

Overview: Reactive transport modelling can have a significant place in understanding contaminant behavior at a site or choosing a remediation scenario. However, few models are available and they are often difficult to manage due to the high number of data to be entered and the complex nature of involved reactions. iPHTD was developed at Bordeaux University in relation with H. Prommer (PHT3D developer) to facilitate this complex task. The major originalities of the interface are: (i) the possibility to deal with solution instead of species, which means much less data to enter, (ii) any change in grid dimensions between model runs (including layering in 3D), particularly useful for transport and reactive modelling, (iii) radial models included, (iv) possibility to run batches, and (v) writing of PEST input files. iPHT3D is available as an interface of its own or as a plugin to Qgis. The versatility of the interface allows the user to enter data for several codes (Modflow, MT3DMS, PHT3D, SeaWat, SUTRA, OpenGeosys) through model-specific dialogs. The course will emphasize the best strategy to develop reactive transport models, and how the interface can be used to rapidly develop such models. Half of the course will be dedicated to exercises that can be chosen by the participants, including BTEX or chlorinated solvent plumes submitted to natural or enhanced attenuation, volatilization of COV in the unsaturated zone, models of ISCO or thermal treatment or dual-phase pumping. To improve teaching efficiency, the model building will be viewed in videos that the participants can choose according to the specific case.

Outline:

1. Scope of the course, major modelling tools, approach

2. Basics on reactive transport modelling

3. Description of the available included codes

4. Originality of iPHT3D

5. Participants will divide into small groups (2-3 persons), choosing one example

6. Video on how to build the given model

7. Build your own model, varying parameters to answer some questions

8. Discussion of the results

Laptops are required for this course.


Site Applications of Geostatistics and Time Series Analysis: Sample Design to Site Closure

Instructors:Carla Landrum, Ph.D. (Amec Foster Wheeler)Jerry Eykholt, Ph.D., PE (Amec Foster Wheeler)Alex Mikszewski, PE (Amec Foster Wheeler)

Objective: Present fundamental concepts and methods in geostatistical and time series analysis for site characterization and remediation applications, including: sample plan design, multimedia contaminant delineation, mass and volume calculations, long-term monitoring optimization, time series characterization, and mapping risk and uncertainty. Remediation professionals, risk assessors, site managers, and regulators will all benefit from attending this course which includes hands-on exercises using Visual Sample Plan and SGeMS.

Overview: Geostatistical approaches are used to build more defensible, quantitative site models, which are critical for characterizing and remediating complex sites. Course participants will learn fundamental concepts and practical methods in geostatistical estimation and simulation, within a format that includes hands-on computer exercises and case studies with increasing complexity. The instructors will de-construct the ‘black-box’ by focusing on how to properly and transparently apply geostatistical methods and interpret associated results. This includes explaining the differences between geostatistics and deterministic approaches (such as inverse-distance or natural neighbor interpolation) that are not based on a probabilistic structure. The goal is to equip participants with the

79

ability to critically analyze spatio-temporal data and decide on the best interpolation method for their application. The instructors will demonstrate how geostatistics can be applied throughout all stages of the project life cycle to optimize overall project costs and performance. This spans the initial sample plan design to long-term monitoring and evaluating regulatory compliance and remedial endpoints.

Participants will explore the following topics: 1) uncertainty and heterogeneity in environmental data; 2) exploratory data analysis (EDA); 3) types of kriging and related assumptions; 4) interpolation grid generation, including curvilinear and 3D grids; 5) kriging implementation and output; 6) cross-validation; 7) conditional simulation for mapping risk and uncertainty; 8) time series analysis; and 9) limitations of geostatistics and practical considerations such as computer software.

Computer exercises will be conducted in Visual Sample Plan and SGeMS, which are both available for free in the public domain. Exercises will focus on implementing basic geostatistical practices typical to sampling optimization and design, EDA, model selection, and interpolation. Input files and tutorial slides for all exercises will be provided to workshop participants on a DVD or thumb drive that will also include reference materials and presentation slides from the course.

Outline:

1. Introduction—deterministic versus probabilistic models; concepts of spatial/temporal data, spatial and temporal dependence, and stationarity; environmental heterogeneity—what it is and what it means when mapping data

2. Geostatistical and time series methods—quantifying spatial dependence, variography; kriging (simple, ordinary, universal, indicator); data fusion and cokriging; data scaling: block versus punctual kriging; conditional simulation/cosimulation; time series analysis and forecasting; computer exercises

3. Applications of geostatistics—sampling and monitoring optimization; site characterization/conceptual site model construction; supporting remedial design and fate and transport models; environmental/health risk assessment; evidence of regulatory compliance and remediation endpoints

4. Geostatistical workflow—project planning and initial sampling design; data collection and data screening; exploratory data analysis and variography; cross-validation and model selection criteria; interpolation and validation; data quality assessment, model documentation, and reporting; computer exercises

5. Software and case studies—public domain (VSP, SGeMS, R) versus commercial options (Surfer, ArcGIS, GMS, Isatis), software hierarchy; practical considerations: gridding, file types; case studies: tying software to applications and methods; computer exercises

Laptops are required for this course (OS Windows 7 or greater).


Near Real-Time High Resolution Site Characterization (HRSC): What, Why, and How

Instructors:Jim Reisinger, M.S, CHMM (Integrated Science & Technology, Inc.)Richard Matthew Ruf (S2C2, Inc.)Jason C. Ruf, M.S. (S2C2, Inc.)

Objective: To introduce the near real-time HRSC concept and explain it in detail, compare and contrast it with conventional characterization, and explain how the technology is used in support of an evolving conceptual site model, and gather data useful in remediation feasibility study and system designs. This topic will be of interest to environmental professionals that design site characterization and remediation programs, regulators engaged in contaminated site characterization, developers, and stakeholders.

Overview: Near real-time high resolution site characterization is an integrated tool used to feed data into conceptual site models (CSM) to characterize contaminated sites and remediation programs. The technology entails using laboratory-grade and direct sensing instrumentation and mobile sampling equipment to generate high quality data in near real time. As the data are generated, they are entered into a database and analyzed spatially and three-dimensionally, which aids in the optimization process and timely modification of the CSM. The data are generated under a rigorous quality control program, making high quality data available for in-the-field decision making, which enables focusing of the characterization effort and results in more efficient decision making and lower remediation cost. The result is generation of higher density and more focused high-quality information. This approach is applicable to all sites at which time, data quality, and cost are critical.

80

Outline:1. Introduction

2. Background: Evolution of site characterization—how we got from 1970s to 2015

3. Comparison of heritage approaches and near real-time high resolution site characterization—advantages and disadvantages

4. Relationship between CSM and near real-time high resolution site characterization—accelerated path to final CSM and characterization

5. Near real-time high resolution site characterization—approach, tools, advantages, site suitability, flexibility (i.e., ability to alter approach on the fly)

6. Quality control/assurance and near real-time high resolution site characterization

7. Database population and analysis—using 2D, 3D, and quantitative geospatial/geostatistical analytical tools

8. Near real-time sample plan adjustment

9. Not just analytical data—stratigraphic and hydrogeologic data

10. Not just characterization—generation of data used in remediation feasibility study and remedy selection and implementation

Laptops are not required for this course.


State-of-the-Art Approach for Evaluating Monitored Natural Attenuation (Biological and Abiotic), Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation

Instructors:Todd H. Wiedemeier, P.G. (T.H. Wiedemeier & Associates, Inc.)John T. Wilson, Ph.D. (Scissortail Environmental Solutions, LLC)Barbara Wilson (Scissortail Environmental Solutions, LLC)

Objective: The go-to document for evaluating monitored natural attenuation has been updated to include the latest analytical techniques (e.g., molecular biological tools, magnetic susceptibility, and isotopes) and knowledge gained over the last 15 years (ESTCP project ER-1129). To facilitate implementation of the new approach, a Microsoft® Excel-based spreadsheet tool called BIOPATH was developed. The objective of this course is to provide the participant with the background and hands-on experience required to effectively evaluate

degradation mechanisms, thus allowing the user to select the most efficacious bioremediation approach, including monitored natural attenuation (MNA). The potential audience includes environmental professionals; state and federal regulators engaged in the remediation of sites contaminated with chlorinated solvents; property developers; and community stakeholders.

Overview: Protocols exist for the evaluation and implementation of MNA and biostimulation, yet, before now, there was no clear guidance on how to choose between MNA, biostimulation, and bioaugmentation, a shortcoming that caused unnecessary expenses and potentially detrimental environmental impacts. In addition, previous protocols are outdated and do not consider the state-of-the-art prognostic and diagnostic tools that assist in decision-making. A systematic framework that allows site owners to select the best bioremediation approach was developed under a project sponsored by ESTCP (ER1129). This framework represents an extension of the 1998 USEPA Technical Protocol for Evaluating the Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents and considers newly-discovered degradation mechanisms including oxidative pathways and abiotic degradation. The new framework relies heavily on degradation rate constants. It also incorporates biogeochemical parameters and, when necessary, quantitative information on magnetic susceptibility, biomarker genes, and compound-specific isotope analyses. An Excel-based tool, BIOPATH was developed to guide users through a decision tree to determine the most efficacious action to meet site-specific remediation goals. The new framework takes into consideration a site’s biogeochemical profile in addition to site management requirements such as time constraints for regulatory compliance, cost, and risk tolerance. If MNA is the preferred remedial alternative, then BIOPATH aids the user in determining site-specific degradation pathways. If it is not, then the approach will suggest the best bioremediation approach. This course will present the logic used to deduce degradation pathways and select the most efficacious bioremediation approach. Most importantly perhaps, this course will show the user how to derive the data and information required to implement the new approach using BIOPATH, including extracting degradation rate constants from site-specific hydrogeological and chemical data using BIOCHLOR. The course will be highly interactive and, when completed, the participant will have the tools necessary to accurately evaluate MNA and bioremediation.

81

Outline:

1. Introduction and overview of the technical protocol for selecting the most appropriate bioremediation approach

2. Overview and use of BioPIC

3. Introduction to degradation rate constants

4. Using BIOCHLOR to estimate rate constants

5. Introduction to mass transformation process

6. Case studies of estimating rate constants

7. Hands on with BIOCHLOR and BioPIC


Sunday, May 22, 20168:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m.

Passive No-Purge Sampling and Other Cost-Effective Tools to Reduce and Manage Monitoring Variability

Instructors:Sanford Britt (ProHydro)Thomas McHugh (GSI Environmental)

Objective: Variability in groundwater monitoring results complicates the evaluation of MNA and active remedy performance. This course will provide site managers and other stakeholders with tools to improve their long-term monitoring programs by controlling the short-term variability in contaminant concentrations.

Overview: Long-term monitoring of groundwater at contaminated sites is a key tool for evaluation of plume stability and remedy effectiveness. However, variability in groundwater monitoring results (i.e., the short-term increases and decreases in contaminant concentrations observed at most sites) is a significant confounder, increasing the number of monitoring wells, monitoring frequency, and monitoring time required to evaluate a plume or remedy. This course will present the results from three SERDP and ESTCP research projects that have served to define the causes of monitoring variability and develop new tools to minimize and manage this variability. Key topics include: i) causes of variability in groundwater monitoring results; ii) effect of sampling method on monitoring variability; iii) effects of monitoring variability on observed concentration trends and evaluation of remedy effectiveness; and iv) methods to optimize groundwater monitoring frequency. After completing the course, participants will be able to design cost-effective groundwater monitoring programs to minimize and manage monitoring variability including selection of sampling methods and evaluation of monitoring results.

Outline:

1. Introduction: Why do we monitor contaminants in groundwater?

2. Well Dynamics: What happens in monitoring wells between sampling events and during sample collection?

3. What causes variability in groundwater monitoring results?

4. How does sample collection method affect monitoring variability?

5. How much monitoring is needed to accurately characterize the long-term concentration trend?

6. What is the trade off between monitoring frequency and monitoring duration?

7. The Monitoring Optimization and Trend Analysis Toolkit: A simple software tool to evaluate monitoring results and optimize monitoring frequency.


Sunday, May 22, 20168:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m.

Short-Term Action Levels for Trichoroethylene: The Disconnect between Perception and Reality

Instructors:Patrick H. Vaughan, MS, CEM (Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.)Deborah L. Gray, Ph.D., DABT (Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.)Angus E. McGrath, Ph.D. (Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.)David R. Gillay, Esq. (Barnes & Thornburg)

Objective: This course will present the scientific basis for the short-term action levels for TCE in indoor air in the context of real-world exposures; the practical challenges of characterizing indoor air exposures to TCE consistent with timeframes specified for taking action; lessons learned from case studies; and a discussion of the legal dilemmas created by these action levels. The potential audience includes environmental professionals, facility owners/operators and attorneys involved with vapor intrusion issues.

Overview: Following the 2011 release of EPA’s updated IRIS Toxicity Profile for Trichloroethylene, EPA Regions and a number of states developed short-term action levels for TCE in indoor air to protect the developing embryo/fetus from congenital heart defects; and ATSDR is revising its MRL accordingly. The scientific basis of EPA’s Reference Concentration (RfC) has been widely

82

criticized by outside stakeholders on a number of levels, including not considering the weight of evidence from the human experience, the practical difficulties in actually implementing these action levels, and the potential to alarm members of the public. Both the exposure and the outcome are common. TCE has been used in industrial processes and consumer products for decades and the epidemiology literature helps to put the RfC derived from laboratory animal studies into perspective. Exposures to TCE in indoor and ambient air at concentrations near the RfC is not uncommon. Heart defects are more prevalent than any other categories of birth defects. Regardless of the veracity of the science, environmental professionals are obligated to evaluate known or suspected exposures to TCE in indoor air from environmental sources in a compressed timeframe and take appropriate actions. Like many other VOCs in indoor and ambient air, levels of TCE display high temporal and spatial variability. The course will present the limitations of current sampling methods for characterizing such dynamic exposures and use case studies to illustrate the challenges of working with multiple stakeholders when implementing response actions. The widespread potential for exposure and concern for the health of babies sets the stage for possible litigation. Emerging aspects of the TCE action levels will be discussed, including the implications of “what did you know and when did you know it”.

Outline:

1. Introduction and overview

2. The science behind EPA’s short-term action levels in the context of evidence from the human experience

3. The need for speed and the reality of air sampling

4. Case Studies: Working with multiple stakeholders

5. The legal landscape of TCE

6. Summary and questions


Sunday, May 22, 20168:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m.

Green and Sustainable Remediation Boot Camp: Preparing for Success

Instructors:Paul Favara (CH2M HILL)Deborah Goldblum (U.S. EPA)Melissa Harclerode, ENV SP (CDM Smith)Stella Karnis (CN)Carlos Pachon (U.S. EPA)L. Maile Smith (Northgate Environmental Management, Inc.)Jake Torrens, MS, LEED AP (Amec Foster Wheeler)Rick Wice, PG (Tetra Tech and Carnegie Mellon University)

Objective: To provide a comprehensive review of frameworks and tools to support implementation of green and sustainable remediation approaches during site characterization and remediation projects. The potential audience includes environmental professionals, state and federal regulators, consultants, academics, students, potentially responsible parties, and other stakeholders associated with investigation and remediation projects.

Overview: In this day and age, it is imperative we act responsibly and avoid negatively impacting the environment or quality of life (e.g., human health and community prosperity), during the process of remediating complex sites. Remediating sites in a green and sustainable manner is an innovative approach that can be incorporated into cleanup at any site. However, complex sites contaminated with recalcitrant and/or chlorinated compounds generally offer more opportunities for improving environmental, economic and social outcomes. Green and sustainable remediation (GSR) approaches can be used to raise awareness to externalities (e.g., resource consumption, air pollution) associated with cleanup activities and minimize them; this is accomplished by establishing GSR goals and selecting strategies (e.g., best management practices) to achieve those goals. GSR has been around in some form or another since the early 2000s; however, industry standards are just starting to take form. In order for this important practice to have a meaningful and measurable impact, and to be recognized as a verifiable practice, practitioners need to be educated and properly trained on how

83

to perform GSR in a transparent and defensible manner. This course will: 1) inform participants on how to identify and mitigate the adverse externalities associated with a site cleanup; 2) teach and prepare participants how to implement GSR approaches in a verifiable and meaningful way using publicly-available resources, guidance, framework, tools and metrics; and 3) provide examples showing how GSR practices, if implemented properly, can lead to environmental, social and/or economic benefits for all stakeholders. Participants of the course will gain an understanding of GSR concepts, know where to find publicly-available resources, and be prepared to implement this approach on their remediation projects.

Outline:

1. Overview of Green and Sustainable Remediation (GSR)—introduction and history of both the green and sustainable remediation frameworks

2. GSR state of the practice—summary of the framework, guidance and resources publicly available (including both regulatory and professional organization frameworks)

3. U.S. regulatory framework, context, and landscape

4. International frameworks, context, and landscape—national and international initiatives and R&D to advance GSR practices

5. Implementing GSR strategy—defining goals, establishing successful stakeholder engagement, metrics and tools to measure and evaluate if objectives were met

6. GSR case studies/breakout session


Sunday, May 22, 20161:00-5:00 p.m.

Introduction to Groundwater Remediation Geochemistry

Instructor:Bill Deutsch (Geochemistry Services, LLC)

Objective: To discuss the primary water/rock processes that occur in a contaminated aquifer geochemical system in response to in situ treatment. The information will be presented at an introductory level for professionals that design, install, or evaluate groundwater remediation systems.

Overview: Remediation doesn’t always proceed as expected – more reagent needs to be added to reach a desired result; the concentration of an initial contaminant of concern decreases in response to treatment but the concentration of a new contaminant increases to a level of concern; unanticipated reactions plug the aquifer, reduce the reactivity of a treatment compound, or affect the pH in a detrimental manner. Many of the reasons that remediation is not effective are due to unforeseen or insufficiently accounted for geochemical processes that occur naturally in the aquifer or are produced by the introduction of treatment chemicals into the aquifer geochemical system. To properly design an effective remediation system, the basic geochemical processes must be understood and taken into account. Site-specific conditions must be determined by an adequate sampling program. Reactions that treat the contaminant of concern must be evaluated for their impact and interaction on the ambient geochemical system. The anticipated longevity of active remediation and the final environmental condition of the aquifer must also consider the natural system. This course provides an introduction to these topics and will allow participants to better understand subsurface processes that can have a major impact on whether or not remediation is a success.

Outline:

1. Geochemical processes affecting remediation

2. Geochemical modeling in remediation

3. Reaction byproducts, advances, and path forward


84

Sunday, May 22, 20161:00-5:00 p.m.

Embedding Sustainable Safety from Design to Operation of Remediation Systems at Operational Facilities

Instructors:Jay Dablow, BA, MSc, C.E.G. (ERM)Charles Schalkwyk, BA(HKE), BA Hons, BSc, MSc, MBA and CIEHF (ERM)Lucy Chesher, BSc Hons, MSc, AIEMA, TechIOSH (ERM)

Objective: This course will present the safety hazards associated with all phases of the lifecycle of in situ process based remediation (for example, thermally enhanced or ambient vapour and groundwater abstraction). These hazards are especially prominent at active facilities. There will be a focus on how safety in design can reduce accident risk, ensure efficient operation and enable safe and effective remediation. The course would be beneficial for remediation site managers, facility managers, remediation system designers and engineers.

Overview: There are a series of hazards associated with remedial systems which are encountered when working on operational facilities. Using thermal remediation as an example there are safety challenges such as migration of VOCs into buildings or ducting; steam, air or chemical ‘daylighting’; interaction of site workers with remediation infrastructure; and subsurface heating of utilities and floor slabs. With upwards of 80% of industrial incidents attributable to human or organizational failures, safety performance is a continuing source of risk to business and is increasingly used as an indicator for business leadership. Clearly, these issues need to be managed both practically and safely when the system will introduce new and unfamiliar hazards to an operating site. This can be especially challenging if new or different attitudes towards safety management are also introduced.

This course will assess hazard identification techniques and their role in this design process. These will aid an intuitive approach to enhance workforce engagement in risk management. It will also tackle the issue of on-site challenges and how these can be managed and assessed. The key parts of the course will focus on safety in remedial system design and how this can enable safe project delivery.

Outline:

1. Introduction and overview

2. Introduction to typical remediation systems

3. Evaluating the system using HazIDs, HazOps, Bowtie Analysis, and process safety reviews

4. Managing and controlling the hazards

5. Contractor management

6. Commissioning phase management

7. Operational phase and decommissioning management

8. Human factors and accident prevention

9. Safety leadership


Sunday, May 22, 20161:00-5:00 p.m.

Cryogenic Core Collection: New Tools for Characterizing Sites and Assessing Remediation Performance

Instructors:Rick Johnson, Ph.D. (Oregon Health & Science University)Tom Sale, Ph.D., PG (Colorado State University)

Objective: In situ freezing of core samples opens up a range of new characterization capabilities. This course will cover the mechanics of core collection, sample handling, analyses and data interpretation which together provide dramatically increased insight into subsurface processes.

Overview: Cryogenic core collection (CCC) provides unprecedented preservation of subsurface samples. This includes complete retention of pore fluids, improved sample recovery, preservation of biomolecules (e.g., mRNA), redox conditions, labile reactive species, and gases (both dissolved and as bubbles).

Because the samples are frozen at the time of collection, processing of cores can occur in the lab, rather than the field. This has multiple benefits, including a simpler field operation, better-controlled conditions in the lab (e.g., anaerobic glove boxes), and the ability to screen and then re-sample cores based on screening results.

CCC can be useful at all stages of subsurface restoration, and is particularly useful to answer difficult questions. For example, collection of high-quality core samples from low-permeability zones allows the full biogeochemical condition of those zones to be analyzed in detail. This can provide

85

direct evidence of biotic and/or abiotic reactions within those zones which may be critical to long-term decision making for the site. CCC can also be a powerful tool for analyzing the effectiveness of enhanced remediation activities.

Beginning with the decision framework regarding core collection, the course will cover: i) when and where CCC should be used; ii) the types of analysis that are possible when using CCC; and iii) how that expanded suite of analyses can best be used to improve site and remediation conceptual models.

Outline:

1. Why should you collect cryogenic core?

2. The mechanics of cryogenic core collection

3. Handling, preservation, transport and storage of frozen core

4. Laboratory sub-sampling of frozen core

5. Physical characterization of frozen core (porosity, water content, NAPL content, permeability, etc.)

6. Biogeochemical analysis of frozen core—VOC analysis; dissolved gases and bubbles in core samples; redox chemistry, pH, aquatic chemistry; molecular tools analysis (e.g., DNA, RNA) of frozen core

7. Developing improved site conceptual models using frozen core samples


Sunday, May 22, 20161:00-5:00 p.m.

Integrated DNAPL Site Characterization

Instructors:Michael B. Smith (Vermont Dept. of Environmental Conservation)Naji Akladiss, P.E. (Maine Dept. of Environmental Protection)Tamzen W. Macbeth, Ph.D, P.E. (CDM Smith)Charles (Chuck) J. Newell, Ph.D, P.E. (GSI Environmental Inc.)Heather V. Rectanus, Ph.D, P.E. (Battelle)

Objective: Sites that are contaminated with or have been contaminated with DNAPLs and DNAPL mixtures present significant environmental challenges and have proved recalcitrant to remediation. Many of the issues contributing to DNAPL site remediation recalcitrance relate to inadequate site characterization and potentially flawed CSMs. This course will present an integrated DNAPL site characterization process and

characterization tools that will allow the development of very accurate CSMs and focused site remediation.

Overview: This course will define the problem statement that sites contaminated with NAPLs and NAPL mixtures present significant environmental challenges and have proved recalcitrant to remediation, and have led to large capital investments into characterization with disappointing results. Concepts of the up-to-date contaminated site conceptual model will be discussed. This includes a discussion of how we can no longer address DNAPL and dissolved phase contamination differently in that they need to be considered together when addressing any site where DNAPLs are or may have been present.

The DNAPL site characterization training will be presented in a progression that will start with an introduction that provides the objectives of the training. Changes in the DNAPL and contaminant fate and transport site conceptual models will be discussed including the controlling roles of geology and the interaction of NAPLs and dissolved phase contaminants with geology; effects of NAPL types and properties and interactions with the subsurface on contaminant fate and transport. The course will introduce the integrated site characterization approach including the importance of high resolution characterization, goals-based characterization objectives, contaminant phases, and the developing ITRC characterization tools table.

Outline:

1. Introduction

2. DNAPL site conceptual model

3. Effect of NAPL types and properties on contaminant fate and transport

4. DNAPL presence, fate, and transport

5. 14 Compartment Model

6. DNAPL life cycle

7. Integrated DNAPL site characterization including how to define and collect appropriate scale data

8. How to manage, analyze, and integrate the large geological-hydrogeological and contaminant databases that can be developed using the integrated site characterization approach

9. Present an interactive characterization tools table


86

Tuesday, May 24, 20162:00-6:00 p.m.

Design and Application of Horizontal Remediation Wells

Instructors:Daniel W. Ombalski, PG (Directed Technologies Drilling, Inc.)James M. Doesburg, PG, LG, LHG (Directed Technologies Drilling, Inc.)Michael D. Lubrecht, LG (Directed Technologies Drilling, Inc.)David S. Bardsley, PG (Directed Technologies Drilling, Inc.)Paul W. Querna, PE (PQ Products, Inc.)Brian Timmins (ETEC, LLC)George Losonsky, Ph.D., PGMark Strong, PE (CH2M HILL)

Objective: This course is intended for environmental professionals involved in the design or review of remediation systems that use horizontal wells to treat contaminated soil and groundwater. Selected topics include well design, factors in well layout and configuration, advances in navigation, materials selection, and other key factors in the design and installation of a horizontal well. The potential audience includes consultants, regulators, and site owners.

Overview: This course will teach the key elements of horizontal remediation well design. Participants will learn through lecture, examples, and case studies the appropriate applications of directional drilling, including well layouts and configurations, appropriate geological settings, and key aspects of well design to ensure constructability, such as: setback distances; depth of cover versus well diameter; appropriate bend radii for materials and wells; well materials selection; well screen design; well path and configuration choices; drilling fluids; and locating systems.

Additional coverage will be provided on well completion and well development. Participants will be provided an opportunity to discuss current projects with instructors. They will learn what critical information is needed by contractors to prepare a realistic bid for a horizontal directional drilling (HDD) project, and how to supply that information in a useable format.

At the conclusion of the course, participants will be able to determine how HDD might be applied to a particular remediation project, what site information is required to obtain viable bids and proposals, how to generally lay out a well system and configure individual wells, and the best timing and methods to engage with a horizontal drilling contractor.

Outline:1. Introduction to horizontal remediation wells

2. Selecting appropriate sites—site geology; surface features and infrastructure; and site access

3. Key factors in well design

4. Fundamentals of horizontal well drilling

5. Advances in horizontal well drilling technology

6. Options for horizontal well installation— drilling fluids, well materials, well completion, well development


Tuesday, May 24, 20162:00-6:00 p.m.

Overcoming Common but Difficult Issues Impacting Soil Gas Assessments through to Mitigating Vapor Intrusion Issues

Instructor:Edward A. Council, Ph.D., PG (Advanced Geologic Sciences, LLC)

Objective: This course will present information to identify and deal with problems encountered during collecting, evaluating, and interpreting data related to assessments, vapor intrusion and its remediation. The potential audience includes experienced environmental professionals, state and federal regulators and others who are engaged in vapor intrusion issues.

87

Overview: Considerable difficulty often exists in many vapor intrusion (VI) projects where volatile organic compounds are at near surface conditions. The problems start with the inability to adequately define the location(s) of the dominant and non-dominant contaminants using most commonly deployed assessment methods. Other problems are related to the heterogenetic processes associated with where the contaminants are moving from and to, as well as the relationship time has on many of the inter-related parameters associated with a VI project. Given these and other issues, a holistic approach to assessment and remediating sites is proving to be a necessary factor to implement faster/less expensive treatment systems.

Data associated with multiple sites will be used to highlight where VI studies can be improved upon by incorporating the multidimensional factors that control its movement through the subsurface and into buildings. The data will also be able to highlight why some assessment/remedial actions are less successful than others. The tools to be used in this class include innovative methods to compare the time-dependent nature of volatile compounds in soil gas and groundwater and the techniques needed to better manage these issues in a remedial system.

State-of-the-art data sets will be incorporated throughout the course to better identify the controlling factors associated with an impacted site. These data will also be used to quantify the effects of new remedial techniques to treat volatile compounds before they enter a structure as well as methods to treat vapors once they are in a building.

Outline:1. Introduction2. General transport processes3. Time-dependent transport processes in the

subsurface4. Data assessment5. Remedial techniques to short circuit transport

processes6. New and sustainable treatment methods


Tuesday, May 24, 20162:00-6:00 p.m.

Performance Assessment of SVE and P&T Systems to Support Remedy Transition or Closure Decisions

Instructors:Michael Truex (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory)Dave Becker, PG (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)Chris Johnson (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory)Mart Oostrom, Ph.D. (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory)

Objective: This course will provide information about conducting performance assessments of SVE and P&T systems based on recent publications and associated tools, including the Soil Vapor Extraction Endstate Tool (SVEET). The new approaches and tools focus on how to gather and analyze performance data to support decisions for shutting down SVE or P&T systems or for transitioning to other remedies.

Overview: Recent publications have described structured approaches for conducting performance assessment of SVE and P&T systems to support transition or closure decisions. For SVE, the document “Soil Vapor Extraction System Optimization, Transition, and Closure Guidance” describes the process of compiling appropriate data and conducting analyses to determine if sources of volatile contaminants in the vadose zone have been diminished sufficiently that groundwater is protected. The approach can be used either to verify that a SVE remedy can be terminated or to define performance objectives for meeting remedy completion goals in the future. The approach may also identify when SVE optimization or transition to another remedy is appropriate. While the fate and transport evaluation to estimate how a vadose zone source affects the groundwater can be complex, the SVE guidance provides calculation approaches (including the spreadsheet-based SVEET tool) that enable users to retrieve results for site-specific conditions based on interpolation between 972 premodeled scenarios. The “Performance Assessment for Pump-and-Treat Closure or Transition” document provides a structured approach for P&T performance assessment, including decision logic, compilation of relevant site data and information, description of appropriate analyses and calculations, and links to supportive guidance and tools. The core approach is based on gathering information for key decision

88

elements that can be used to distinguish the most appropriate type of decision outcome. Outcomes include remedy closure, transition to MNA, continued/optimized P&T, supplemented P&T, and transition to a new remedy approach. The document also includes a number of case-study examples that illustrate each of these outcomes. The course will provide information about the technical basis for the above approaches and tools, and will help participants learn how to apply these approaches at remediation sites.

Outline:

1. Introduction and context of documents

2. SVE assessment approach

3. Technical and numerical simulation basis for SVE assessment

4. Hands-on SVEET tool description and Q&A

5. Case Study: Hanford site SVE system closure decision process

6. P&T assessment approach

7. Illustration of the approach through case studies


Tuesday, May 24, 20162:00-6:00 p.m.

The Utilization of Stable Isotopes in Evaluating the Origin and Fate of Chlorinated and Other Recalcitrant Organic Compounds in the Environment

Instructor:Paul Philp (University of Oklahoma [Emeritus])

Objective: The goal of this course is to expose environmental scientists, engineers, and regulators to the concept of using stable isotopes as an additional analytical tool for monitoring the origin and fate of organic compounds in the environment as well as explaining the basics of the technique.

Overview: Stable isotopes have emerged as a powerful analytical tool over the past two decades. Applications have been wide ranging in many disciplines, but in the area of environmental chemistry, uses have centered on contaminant source discrimination and monitoring the onset and extent of natural attenuation. This technique should not be thought of as a standalone technique, but one that should be integrated with conventional techniques such as GC and GMS. In this course the basic concepts of stable isotopes will be introduced. This will be followed by discussion of applications to groundwater samples, free product samples, and soil samples as well as vapor intrusion applications. Integration of GC and GMS data will also be discussed. Applications will include utilization of stable isotopes of C, H, and Cl to both source discrimination studies and natural attenuation studies.

Outline:

1. Introduction

2. Methodology—Fractionation-Rayleigh Model-Bulk Isotopes-Isotopes of Individual Compounds

3. Integration of GC, GCMS, GIRS data

4. Applications—source discrimination and remediation

5. Vapor intrusion studies


89

AECOM is a world leader in developing innovative

environmental solutions with cutting-edge expertise in remediation of chlorinated and recalcitrant compounds. We have a history of solving complex site challenges around the globe using an effective endpoint strategy, while addressing a broad range of contaminants and working with diverse stakeholders. Bringing together the best resources in the marketplace, AECOM remediation teams critically assess the nature and extent of contamination; risks to receptors and safe exposure levels; utilize leading-edge biological, chemical and physical technologies to reduce project costs; and prepare remedial designs that appropriately address the problems posed by the contaminants. We provide comprehensive consulting, engineering, remediation,

compliance, permitting and environmental management solutions for multinational clients in the private and public sectors. AECOM is a global design and management firm with 100,000 employees in 150 countries serving the environmental, transportation, facilities, oil and gas, mining, energy, water and government markets. www.aecom.com

Amec Foster Wheeler designs, delivers and maintains strategic and complex assets for its customers across the global energy and related sectors. With over 40,000 people in more than 50 countries, the company

operates across the oil and gas mining, clean energy, power generation, pharma, environment

CONFERENCE SPONSORS

As the Conference presenter and manager, Battelle gratefully acknowledges the financial contributions and support of the following Conference sponsors. The corporate descriptions and website links they provided appear below.

and infrastructure markets. As a leading provider of environmental remediation services, Amec Foster Wheeler employs top industry experts working in partnership with the academic community to bring innovative solutions to the most recalcitrant remediation challenges. By carefully evaluating our customers’ business needs with respect to time, operations, cost, and liability considerations, we identify appropriate remedial approaches and technologies. The foundation of our remediation practice lies in our integrated network of diverse practitioners, capitalizing on our collective experience to solve problems in an innovative, yet cost-effective, manner. We understand that successful remediation projects rely upon sound and thorough site characterization; a detailed understanding of source areas; application of a broad range of technologies, including combined remedy approaches; and above all, a quality assurance program that integrates continuous feedback to the design, implementation and optimization of remedial systems. Our environmental remediation practice is focused on developing and implementing sustainable remedial technologies that drive sites to closure and back into productive use. Amec Foster Wheeler is an Industry Affiliate in the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC), participating in several technical teams, writing new guidance documents and teaching the latest innovations in characterization and remediation. www.amecfw.com

ARCADIS is an international company that provides consulting, engineering and project management services in the fields of environment, water, buildings, and infrastructure. With nearly 28,000 employees worldwide, we are renowned for our world-class projects and combining a deep knowledge of local conditions with fresh global perspectives for unique, integrated solutions. Our focus on Environment includes both restoration and business consulting—we are continually investing in the creation of pioneering solutions, challenging the status quo, and engaging in partnerships to enhance business outcomes. We have also created business models that support the low-cost delivery of large programs, to complement the ability to solve the most complex technical challenges. ARCADIS strives to provide balance: between the creative and the functional, the innovative and the tried and true, present needs and future legacy. www.arcadis-us.com

Brown and Caldwell is a full-service environmental engineering, consulting and construction firm with 45 offices and 1,500+

professionals across the country. We are the largest engineering consulting firm solely focused on the U.S. environmental sector. For more than 60 years, our creative designs and progressive solutions have helped scores of municipal, federal and private agencies successfully overcome their most challenging environmental obstacles. An employee-owned company, Brown and Caldwell is relentlessly focused on client needs and brings all the essential ingredients® for a successful project and a standout experience. Service, great technical solutions, and innovation: these qualities were important to our founders in 1947, and they still are essential to BC and our clients today. www.brwncald.com

Founded in 1991, Cascade Drilling, L.P. (Cascade) has grown from a specialized

regional drilling provider to a national, full-service company offering innovation solutions for every step of your project, from advanced site characterization to drilling to collaborative remedial design and implementation. Today, Cascade is the leading provider of environmental drilling, in situ remediation applications, and direct-sensing technologies in the United States, with a strong focus on high-end, differentiated sonic drilling technology. Our diverse portfolio of environmental, investigation and remediation services are evidence of our ability to complete the most challenging projects on time and on budget. Our high-quality service, reliable crews, and leading safety program make Cascade the first choice in environmental services. Ranked a Top 200 ENR Environmental Services firm, Cascade offers the benefits of a national partner with the personal attention of a local contractor: cost control, scheduling flexibility, insurance and liability protection, safety, compliance and sustainability. www.cascadedrilling.com

CDM Smith provides integrated solutions in water, environment, transportation, energy and facilities to public

and private clients worldwide. As a full-service consulting, engineering, construction and operations firm, we deliver exceptional client service, quality results and enduring value across the entire project life cycle. Comprised of more than 5,000 employees, the firm’s unwavering focus remains on creating innovative and lasting solutions that improve environmental value, quality of life and economic prosperity. With more than $1.2 billion

90

91

in annual revenues, we maintain the size, stability and resources needed to successfully undertake a diverse range of projects, applying local knowledge through a network of more than 125 offices worldwide while leveraging the full resources and expertise of our global staff. www.cdmsmith.com

CH2M is a global engineering and project delivery company partnering with public and

private clients to tackle the world’s most complex infrastructure and natural resource challenges. The firm’s work is concentrated in the energy, environment, industrial, nuclear, transportation, and water markets. CH2M has gross revenues of $5.5 billion, has 25,000 employees and is a specialist in program, construction and operations management and design. Ranked the number one environmental firm by Engineering News-Record, CH2M has also been named a leader in sustainable engineering and environmental services providers by Verdantix. CH2M has more than 30 years of experience applying technologies and finding new and more efficient ways to deliver innovative approaches to managing a wide range of contaminates. Our firm’s environmental site characterization, remediation, and revitalization services include high resolution characterization, integration of sustainability tenets into remedial planning, and laboratory and pilot testing and application of innovative remediation technologies. www.ch2m.com

ERM (Environmental Resources Management) is a leading global provider of environmental, health, safety, risk, social consulting, and sustainability-related services. We have more than 150

offices in over 40 countries and territories employing more than 5,000 professional consultants, strategic advisors, and technical experts. Over the past three years, we have worked for more than 50 percent of the Global Fortune 500, delivering innovative solutions for business and select government clients by helping them understand and manage the sustainability challenges that the world is increasingly facing. Helping clients safely develop sustainable solutions to their contaminated land management challenges is at the core of what we do. We strive to develop risk-based remediation strategies to protect human health and ecology, satisfy our clients’ business goals and regulatory obligations, control costs, and manage stakeholder expectations. www.erm.com

FRx is recognized by leading environmental professionals as the premier service provider for injecting treatment materials at contaminated

sites. FRx has spent twenty years inventing, demonstrating, improving, and commercializing a suite of technologies that have proven crucial to the remediation of any and all contaminants in all earth materials: hydraulic fracturing through direct push (soil); jet-assisted fracturing through direct push (soil); jet fracturing through cased hole (soil and weathered rock); jet-assisted fracturing through cased hole (soil, weathered rock, and fractured rock); and hydraulic fracturing in open rock (weathered rock, fractured rock, and unfractured rock). If your project seems impossible by any other means, FRx has a solution for putting treatment materials in contact with contaminants. A game-changing solution including costs starts with a 15-minute conversation. Please contact us any time at 864.356.8424 to find out how we can make your goals possible. www.frx-inc.com

GEO is a woman-owned small business and the patent owner for GTR™ gas

thermal remediation and C3 Technology refrigerated condensation systems, which are operating across the U.S. and internationally. GEO is celebrating over 25 years in business as leaders on condensation vapor treatment at sites with elevated concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nonaqueous phase liquids (NAPLs), and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs). GEO has two office locations, California and Maine, and its partners have offices in New Jersey, Texas, Colorado, the United Kingdom, Australia, Brazil, and China. www.georemco.com

Founded in 2004 by environmental engineers, Hepure has established a line

of innovative environmental remediation products, including our high-quality Ferox™ zero valent iron (ZVI) powders, emulsified ZVI, chemical oxidants, and bioremediation solutions. Our remediation products have been developed from over 50 years of practical experience with complex remediation projects involving a variety of groundwater and soil contaminants and with a commitment to sustainable remediation. At Hepure, we know that success of the projects on which you work is extremely important to your clients. Their success is your success. And getting it right the first time means choosing the right remediation product with the correct approach for your contaminants. Hepure can help you get there, even if it means our remediation product is not the

one selected. Why? Because we are committed to your long-term success. We don’t strive to sell products alone—we work to develop successful client relationships. www.hepure.com

Integrated Science & Technology (IST) has provided and continues to provide comprehensive engineering

and consulting services in the soil and groundwater remediation field to a wide variety of global clients since 1991. By integrating innovative scientific solutions with advanced technologies, IST is able to produce the highest-quality work resulting in contaminated site management that is protective of human health and the environment at the lowest possible cost. www.integratedscience.com

ISOTEC has been an industry leader in environmental remediation through soil and groundwater treatment since 1995. Revolutionary

techniques and our patented processes mean we can effectively destroy a wide variety of organic and inorganic contaminants. Our services include both in situ and ex situ remediation via chemical oxidation, chemical reduction, gas thermal remediation, C3 vapor treatment, soil mixing, stabilization, metals remediation and bioremediation. A wide range of contaminants including aliphatic and aromatic petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated alkenes and alkanes, chlorophenols, pesticides, carbon tetrachloride, 1,4-dioxide, metalloids (hexavalent chromium and arsenic) and cationic metals can be treated cost-effectively in a short timeframe using our treatment approaches. We specialize in combined or sequential application of technologies to achieve optimal treatment results. Over two decades in the industry gives us a unique perspective for evaluating complex sites and determining appropriate remedial solutions. Whether it is soil or groundwater remediation, bedrock or vadose-zone treatment, ISOTEC has a remedial approach to satisfy your client’s needs. www.ISOTEC-INC.com

Louis Berger provides comprehensive interdisciplinary services in environmental sciences and engineering, natural resource restoration, solid/hazardous-waste

management, water/wastewater, archaeology, waterfront/ports and other A/E planning, design, and construction-phase services. Our deep knowledge of the chemistry, environmental fate, and remediation of chlorinated and recalcitrant compounds—dioxins, PCBs, PAHs and chlorinated solvents—enables us to successfully address contamination across multiple media. Our investigations of fractured bedrock groundwater utilize innovative tools that distinguish our work. These tools include the discrete fracture network (DFN) approach, rock matrix diffusion sampling, and multilevel wells for groundwater sampling. Our state-of-the-art forensic methods and models build a sound understanding of each system, thus maximizing benefits of the overall approach. All of our approaches consider stakeholder concerns for project buy-in. In fact, our interpretations of highly complex systems on prominent contaminated sediment sites have passed scrutiny by both independent peer reviewers and stakeholders. Our experts have played instrumental roles in addressing recalcitrant and chlorinated compound contamination on high-profile sites, such as the Hudson River, the Passaic River, Bound Brook (Cornell-Dubilier Electronics Superfund Site) and the Gowanus Canal/Newtown Creek. www.louisberger.com

Microbial Insights, Inc. (MI) is an environmental biotechnology laboratory specializing in the development and application

of cutting edge molecular biological tools (MBTs) to describe and quantify microbial populations. Over the past 23 years, MI has become the industry leader in the application of molecular (non-culture based) approaches emphasizing nucleic acid (DNA and RNA) and lipid biomarkers (PLFA) for more effective evaluation of microbial processes ranging from bioremediation to microbiologically influenced corrosion. Always at the forefront, MI offers the most comprehensive range of environmental molecular diagnostic tools including qPCR, QuantArray, stable isotope probing (SIP), in situ microcosms, and next generation sequencing (NGS) to aid in site characterization and site management decisions. State-of-the-art technologies must be coupled with personalized customer service. MI has over 20 years of experience in the environmental remediation field and is committed to serving our clients at each step in the process from assay selection through data interpretation. www.microbe.com

www.microbe.com

92

93

Advanced manufacturing, energy, environment, water—OBG has specialized in

engineering and problem solving for more than 70 years, but the Company’s real strength is creating comprehensive, integrated solutions for our clients. OBG provides cost-effective remediation solutions to reduce client environmental liabilities and satisfy the objectives of project stakeholders. Offering single-source responsibility, OBG personnel have capabilities to support a wide range of remedial programs, from site investigations and remedial alternative evaluations to remedial design and construction, commissioning, operation and maintenance, and site closure. OBG is a premier provider of integrated, innovative remedial solutions for man-made and natural environments. OBG—there’s a way. www.obg.com

Panther Technologies, Inc., is an environmental contracting firm

that provides a wide variety of conventional and innovative technologies, including civil excavation; wetlands remediation; and in situ and ex situ chemical oxidation, reduction and bioremediation. Our objective is simple: provide the highest-quality contracting services available to our consulting/engineering, industrial, chemical and utility clients in a manner that best serves their interests. Built on a foundation of dedicated and technically competent environmental professionals, Panther’s cornerstone to success comprises client service, safety, competence, quality and professionalism. Our ability to value-engineer remedial solutions results in lower closure costs, setting us apart from our competition. Panther’s project managers remain current with innovative remedial technologies, where we have remained an industry leader for the past 15 years, so that we can efficiently implement these solutions for our clients. We pride ourselves on having implemented hundreds of innovative site-remediation approaches that have saved our clients tens of millions of dollars. Whether your remedial challenge requires a custom solution or implementation of a predesigned approach, Panther and/or our affiliated company, Geo Sierra Environmental, Inc., are ready and able to support your needs. www.panthertech.com and www.geosierraenv.com

REGENESIS is the global leader in the research, development and commercialization of technology-based solutions for

the environment. More specifically, the Company specializes in scientifically proven product- and services-based solutions for groundwater and soil remediation. This unique combination of innovative products and expert-based services results in a high degree of certainty when it comes to meeting contaminated site remediation objectives. Specific to the area of vapor intrusion mitigation, Land Science Technologies, a division of REGENESIS, provides a range of proven technologies and systems to address this growing environmental concern. REGENESIS is a worldwide organization, drawing from over 20 years of environmental remediation experience on over 20,000 projects in over 26 countries. With offices throughout the United States and Europe, as well as distribution partners strategically placed around the globe, our solutions have been successfully used by environmental consulting, engineering and construction firms to serve a broad range of clients. These include Fortune 500 companies, private real estate owners, insurance companies, private manufacturers, municipalities, regulatory agencies, and federal, state and local regulatory agencies and governments. www.regenesis.com; www.landsciencetech.com

Remediation Products, Inc. (RPI) provides Trap & Treat®, a safe, effective and predictable approach that closes sites

where others manage risk. RPI is the innovator and manufacturer of Trap & Treat® BOS 100® (complete remediation for chlorinated contamination) and BOS 200® (total turnaround for petroleum hydrocarbon contamination). Founded in 2002, RPI has grown to be a leading supplier of superior in situ remediation products in North America and Europe. Learn more about RPI’s revolutionary approach to in situ contamination and the work of the international RPI Group at www.trapandtreat.com

94

T&M Associates is an employee-owned engineering, consulting and environmental services provider with a 50-year history of responding

to the challenges facing our public and private clients with effective, innovative and timely solutions. Consistently ranked in the top half of Engineering News-Record’s list of the Top 500 Design Firms, T&M sets itself apart from competitors by uniting a client-focused approach with broad technical expertise and proactive project management. From locations throughout Delaware, Kentucky, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Indiana, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania, we offer proven experience and a deep roster of technical experts to address your needs related to remediation, environment, energy, public works, transportation, structures, solid waste, water resources and real estate development. www.tandmassociates.com

TRS Group, Inc. is the highest capacity and most experienced in situ thermal provider in

the world. TRS Electrical Resistance Heating (TRS ERH) provides the greatest contaminant reductions, shortest cleanup times, and at the lowest price when

compared to life cycle costs of other technologies. TRS ERH equipment and project designs provide the greatest in field flexibility, treating a higher range of contaminant and soil types with less water and greater hydraulic control. Polishing effects of TRS ERH have shown proven continued decline over time with no rebound. When combined with other technologies, TRS ERH not only treats the contaminated source zone, but downgradient plumes. In addition, low energy/temperature applications are also being implemented to reduce capital costs. TRS will also guarantee projects with no escape clauses. TRS is now also providing ERH remediation services in South America and the European Union through our joint ventures TRS Doxor and HMVTRS. www.thermalrs.com

Woodard & Curran is a national science and engineering firm helping clients solve complex environmental and engineering challenges. From risk management con-sulting to environmental remediation, waste

treatment, and energy, we align our approach with your vision and bring our expertise to bear to achieve your goals. www.woodardcurran.com

95

Tenth International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant CompoundsMAY 22–26, 2016 ú PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA

www.battelle.org/chlorcon

Every day, the people of Battelle apply science and technology to solving what matters most. At major technology centers and national laboratories around the world, Battelle conducts research and development, designs and manufactures products and delivers critical services for government and commercial customers. Headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, since its founding in 1929, Battelle serves the national security, health and life sciences and energy and environmental industries. For more information, visit www.battelle.org.

Battelle and its logos are registered trademarks of Battelle Memorial Institute. © Battelle Memorial Institute 2013. All Rights Reserved.

Date post:	18-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

TENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON REMEDIATION OF CHLORINATED AND RECALCITRANT ... · 2019-07-18 ·...

Documents