1

PRELIMINARYPROGRAM

ELEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON REMEDIATION OF CHLORINATED AND RECALCITRANT COMPOUNDS

www.battelle.org/chlorcon ú #Chlorinated18

APRIL 8-12, 2018 ú PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA

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

81 SHORT COURSES

98 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 ú Booth #414

Conference SponsorsBattelle gratefully acknowledges the financial contributions and support of the following Conference sponsors. The corporate descriptions they provided appear on pages 98-102.

www.thermalrs.com ú Booth #301

www.regenesis.com ú Booth #327 www.langan.com ú Booth #603

www.aecom.com úBooth #117

www.erm.com ú Booth #225

www.frx-inc.com ú Booth #406

www.obg.com ú Booth #600www.eosremediation.com ú Booth #707

www.woodplc.com ú Booth #605

www.geoklock.com ú Booth #108

www.tandmassociates.com ú Booth #601www.arcadis-us.com ú Booth #610

www.woodardcurran.com ú Booth #502

www.ch2m.com ú Booth #500

www.cdmsmith.com ú Booth #306 www.trapandtreat.com ú Booth #713

It can be done

4

OVERVIEW

5

OVERVIEW

The Conference offers extensive technical tracks, educational opportunities, exhibits and hands-on demonstrations from leading companies, as well as enhanced networking with national and international remediation experts.

The Exhibit Hall, the Welcome Reception, and display of the Group 1 Posters will open Sundayevening, April 8. The Conference Program will begin Monday morning, April 9, when ConferenceChairs Wendy Condit and Ramona Darlington, both of Battelle, will conduct the Plenary Session.

Join Scott Fulton of the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) as he discusses key regulatory developments/changes that will shape efforts to provide meaningful and sustainable solutions to environmental challenges that the world will face in the years ahead. In addition, his talk will explore the evolving roles of government at all levels, the private sector, and the public in ensuring environmental protection. Since 2015, Scott has served as President of ELI, the world’s premier nonpartisan institute for building effective environmental governance and rule of law.

The technical program, to be held Monday afternoon through Thursday, will consist of more than 1,100 platform and poster presentations in 80 breakout sessions, as well as seven panel discussions.

Sessions and panels are organized according to major themes that address technology innovations and solutions to key environmental restoration challenges. Presentations will emphasize field applications and case studies; but fundamental research, pilot-scale testing, and modeling studies are also included. Strategies will be shared for optimizing site management, improving sustainability, and supporting stakeholder interactions.

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

The 2018 Conference will be an outstanding opportunity for the environmental remediation community to meet, learn, and share ideas. Receptions and meals offered throughout the Conference will provide numerous networking opportunities. 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 Eleventh International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds will be conducted April 8-12, 2018, in Palm Springs, California. The Conference is presented and organized by Battelle. Sponsors include leading organizations active in site remediation research and application. Attendance is expected to include more than 1,600 environmental professionals from academia, state and federal government agencies, consulting firms, research organizations, and industries from around the world.

6

Location and ScheduleAll events will be held at the Palm Springs

Convention Center (277 North Avenida

Caballeros, Palm Springs, CA 92262) and

adjoining Renaissance Hotel (888 East Tahquitz

Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262).

Exhibits, the Group 1 Poster Display, and the

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

The technical program will be conducted Monday

through Thursday with a half-day recess Tuesday

afternoon. Short courses will be held all-day

Sunday and on Tuesday afternoon.

Technical Program OverviewThe technical program will be comprised of more

than 1,100 platform and poster presentations in

80 sessions, along with seven panel discussions.

The sessions and panels are organized according

to the following major topics:

v Emerging Contaminants

v Remediation Technologies

v Remediation Technology Developments

v Assessing Remediation Effectiveness

v Green and Sustainable Remediation

v Fractured Rock

v Addressing Challenging Site Conditions

v Petroleum and Heavy Hydrocarbon Site Strategies

v Vapor Intrusion

v Technology Transfer and Stakeholder Communications

v Metals

v Characterization, Fate, and Transport

v International Environmental Remediation Markets

v Advanced Diagnostic Tools

GENERAL INFORMATION

7

Platform and Poster Presentations. Platform

sessions will begin Monday afternoon and

conclude Thursday; poster sessions will be

conducted on Monday and Wednesday evenings.

Platform and poster presentations scheduled as

of December 5, 2017, are listed by session on

pages 20-80.

See pages 12-15 for the Program at a Glance

for an overview of the days on which specific

sessions will be conducted.

Abstracts were due August 31, 2017.

Due to 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.

Panels. Seven panel discussions will be

scheduled throughout the technical program.

Panel descriptions and moderators’ and panelists’

names appear on the pages indicated below.

v Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Precursors: Is It Too Early or Too Late to Worry

About Them? (page 23)

v Building a Remedy with the End in Mind:

Advances in Adaptive Management for Efficient

Cleanup of Complex Sites (page 47)

v Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD):

Treatment Train Engine or Caboose? (page 57)

v Accelerating the Use of Innovative Technologies:

What is the Role of Pilot Testing, Demonstration,

Verification, and Certification? (page 65)

v How Can We Improve Groundwater Transport

Modeling? (page 69)

v Enough is Enough: When Do You Have Enough

Data? (page 70)

v International Perspectives on Management

Approaches for PFAS (page 74)

Proceedings. All platform and poster

presenters have been asked to submit short

papers expanding upon their presentations.

The proceedings will be made available online

approximately 2 months after the Conference

to registrants who paid standard industry,

government, or student rates. Past years’

(2002-2014) proceedings are available on the

Conference website under the Publications tab.

Final Program & Abstract Collection. This

Preliminary Program lists all presentations

scheduled as of December 5, 2017. It is

subject to revision (e.g., 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 March 30, 2018:

v Final Program

v 2018 Chlorinated Conference mobile app that

will include abstracts for all scheduled

presentations

Email notifications will be sent to all who have

registered by March 30, providing links to these

resources. A printed copy of the Final Program will

be provided with registration material. Due to the

size of the program—seven panels and more than

1,100 platform talks and poster presentations—

it is recommended that participants review the

online version of the Final Program and abstracts

prior to the Conference.

Short Courses. As of December 5, 2017,

there are eighteen short courses scheduled for

presentation. Courses will be offered on Sunday,

April 8, from 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., and on Tuesday

afternoon, April 10, from 2:00-6:00 p.m., during

the recess in the program. Courses are open to

both Conference registrants and individuals who

will not be attending the Conference technical

program. Discounts apply for early registration

and payment.

See pages 81-97 for short course descriptions

and scheduling information.

GENERAL INFORMATION

8

Program Committee

Conference Chairs

Wendy Condit, PE (Battelle)

Ramona Darlington, Ph.D. (Battelle)

Steering Committee

Dora Chiang, Ph.D., PE (AECOM)

Kira Lynch (U.S. EPA, Region 10)

Shaily Mahendra, Ph.D. (UCLA)

Victor Medina, Ph.D. (U.S. Army Engineer

Research & Development Center)

Ravi Naidu (CRC CARE)

Anthony Nelson (NAVFAC EXWC)

Charles Newell, Ph.D., PE (GSI Environmental)

Bill Newman (RNAS Remediation Products)

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

David Reynolds, Ph.D., PE (Geosyntec

Consultants)

David Tsao, Ph.D. (BP Corporation North

America, Inc.)

Meals, Breaks, & Receptions

For the convenience of Conference participants,

the following meals, breaks, and light receptions,

will be provided at no additional cost to program

registrants and exhibit booth staff. All food

functions will be served in or near the Exhibit Hall

where seating will also be provided.

Breaks between sessions may not

correspond with food service times. If you

wish to attend specific food functions,

please plan your schedule accordingly.

Food function times are subject to change in

the months leading up to the Conference and

the final schedule will be available in the Final

Program. For other meals and refreshments, Dates

restaurant and Rocks Lounge are located in the

Renaissance Hotel and other options are available

nearby. Rocks Lounge is open daily from 6:00-

10:00 a.m. as a coffee café. 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.

Continental Breakfast.

Monday-Thursday, 7:00-8:00 a.m.

Morning Beverage Break.

v Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday,

9:30-10:00 a.m.

Lunch.

v Monday, 10:30-12:00—Platform presentations

begin at 12:10 p.m.

v Lunch is not provided Tuesday, April 10.

The technical program will recess at 1:50 p.m.

v Wednesday and Thursday,

11:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m.

Afternoon Beverage Break.

v Monday, 1:30–2:00 p.m.

v Tuesday, 11:45 a.m.–12:15 p.m.

v Wednesday and Thursday, 2:00-3:00 p.m.

Receptions.

v Sunday—Welcome Reception, 6:00-9:30 p.m.

v Monday—Poster Group 1 Presentations

& Networking Reception, 4:30-6:30 p.m.*

v Wednesday—Poster Group 2 Presentations

& Networking Reception, 4:30-6:30 p.m.*

v Thursday—Closing Cocktail Reception,

4:00 p.m.-5:00

*Presenters in each poster group will be present at their poster boards from 4:30-6:30 p.m. To enhance networking opportunities for all attendees, including Exhibitors, we ask that Exhibit booths be staffed from 4:30-5:30 p.m. After 5:30 p.m., Exhibitors may “close” their booths, if desired, and spend the remainder of the reception time networking and viewing the poster presentations. The Exhibit Hall will close at 7:00 p.m.

Exhibit Hall

Exhibits. Exhibit booths 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 6:00 p.m. Sunday

evening through 1:00 p.m. Thursday afternoon.

As of December 5, a few booth spaces are

still available. Click here to be directed to a

list of current Exhibitors and the online booth

registration form.

9

Learning Lab. New in 2018, the Learning Lab,

located in the Exhibit Hall, will consist of hands-on

demonstrations highlighting specific technologies,

tools, and software. A schedule of planned

demonstrations will be available in the Final

Program.

We appreciate the participation of the following

companies, whose contributions will be applied

toward the Learning Lab experience.

Student Participation

University students, through Ph.D. candidates,

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.

Recruitment is a major focus of many participating

Exhibitors and Sponsors and the Conference will

provide enhanced networking opportunities for

student job-seekers.

Student Paper Competition. Paper submissions

were due October 13, 2017. The winning

paper(s) will be scheduled for presentation at the

Conference. Presenters will be awarded at the

Plenary Session and will receive complimentary

registrations and financial awards to help cover

travel and related costs.

Student & Young Professional Networking

Events. To help students and mentors get

acquainted, a Student & Young Professional

Networking Reception will be held Monday

evening, following the Group 1 poster

presentations. Additional details will be emailed to

student registrants by March 16. Up-and-coming

scientists and engineers will pitch their research,

technologies, and ideas during the Lunch break

on Wednesday, April 11. All attendees are

welcome and may bring lunch into the room. The

best pitch will be awarded a $100 prize.

We appreciate the participation of the following

companies, whose contributions will be applied

toward the student paper winner(s) cash award

and other student events.

Sponsors and Additional Sponsorship Opportunities

As the Conference presenter and manager,

Battelle gratefully acknowledges the support

of the Conference Sponsors, Learning Lab

Sponsors, and Student Event Sponsors. Their

financial contributions help defray general

operating costs of planning and conducting the

Conference.

Sponsorship opportunities are still available. For

additional information, contact Susie Warner at

The Scientific Consulting Group (301-670-4990;

chlorinated2018@scgcorp.com).

Conference Registration

Technical Program Registration. Conference

registration must be completed online and

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 February

23, 2018. After that date, payment may be made

only by major credit card. Purchase orders will not

be accepted at any time.

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.

Please fully review the registration terms and

conditions located on the Registration page of

the Conference website before registering.

10

Note: If you wish to be excluded from registration

lists distributed to other attendees, Sponsors, and

Exhibitors, please check the “opt-out” box during

the registration process.

Industry US$955 US$1025

Gov./Univ.* US$830 US$930

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 AFTERFEB. 23, 2018

PAID BYFEB. 23, 2018

No financial assistance is available to support registration or other costs of attending the Conference. Registration fees are the major source of funding for the Conference and a significant percentage of registrants will make presentations and/or chair sessions. All presenting authors and session chairs are expected to register before the Conference and pay the applicable technical-program registration fees.

The Organization ID associated with the

company’s booth reservation will be required to

register discounted sponsor/exhibitor technical

registrants and booth staff. It can be found in the

booth reservation confirmation email.

See the Registration page for additional details

and the requisite links for the registration

categories below.

Sponsor/Exhibitor Discounted Technical

Program Registration. Only those registered

for the technical program will be admitted to

technical sessions. Anyone making a platform

or poster presentation, chairing a session,

or particpating on a panel must be registered

for the technical program. Technical program

registrants may staff the exhibit booth as needed.

A certain number of booth staff, determined by

booth size, are eligible for an upgraded technical

program registration ($700/each) and registration

must be completed online.

Booth Staff Registration. Booth staff will be

registered by the Booth Point of Contact. Booth

staff are defined as your employees who will be

attending the Conference solely to work in your

exhibit; they will be admitted to food functions

but not to technical sessions unless registered

for the technical program. Booth staff badges

are not transferable to other individuals and may

not be traded with technical registrants to avoid

registration fees. Booth staff registration must

be completed online. Once a booth has been

reserved, the Booth Point of Contact may access

registrations at any time to add/update booth

staff.

The Participation ID of the person being

registered is required.

Inquiries. Inquiries about registration may be

addressed to The Scientific Consulting Group

(301-670-4990; chlorinated2018@scgcorp.com).

Conference Venue

All Conference events will be held at the Palm

Springs Convention Center (PSCC) (277 North

Avenida Caballeros, Palm Springs, CA 92262)

and the adjoining Renaissance Hotel (888 East

Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262).

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 several opportunities

to network with colleagues during lunches,

receptions, and other breaks in the program

schedule.

The PSCC, managed by SMG Worldwide,

participates in a comprehensive environmental

program designed to utilize best practices

11

in water conservation, energy efficiency,

waste diversion, and air quality. SMG’s Green

IMPACT Program (which stands for innovation,

mindfulness, participation, accountability,

consistency and transparency) supports green

and sustainable practices at its conference

facilities worldwide. The in-house catering

partner, Savoury’s, utilizes biodegradable food

service products, locally grown food, and donates

excess food to local assistance programs. It also

participates in the City of Palm Springs’ pilot

composting program.

Hotel Accommodations

Room blocks with reduced group rates have been

set aside at the Renaissance Palm Springs

Hotel (attached to the Convention Center) and

the Palm Springs Hilton (approximately 1-block

away). If making a reservation by phone, 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 payment, cancellation,

and early check-out policies before making a

reservation. See the Venue & Hotels page for the

group rate expiration dates, unless the blocks

sell out before those date, and links to the Hotel’s

reservations page.

Group-Rate Reservations. Reservations can be

made online or by phone. Insert your arrival and

departure dates and then follow the prompts to

complete your reservation.

Government Reservations. 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

(not applicable for government contractors).

Please use the applicable “Government Rate”

links. A government employee ID must be

presented at check-in for rate verification.

Travel and Local Transportation

Air 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.

Driving. Approximate drive-time is 2 hours from

Los Angeles and San Diego and 4 hours from Las

Vegas and Phoenix.

Hotel Shuttles. Complimentary shuttle service

to and from the airport is provided by 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 and request a pick-up

(760-322-6000).

If you are staying at the Hilton, please use the

courtesy phone directly across from the baggage

pick-up area to call and request a pick-up

(760-320-6868).

Parking. The Conference does not validate

parking and the rates below are subject to change

without notice.

v Renaissance: $22 per day valet/$12 per day

self-park with in-and-out privileges

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

with in-and-out privileges

v Convention Center: $8 per day self-park only.

Overnight parking not permitted. Limited

complimentary parking is available on

Amado Street.

The Chlorinated Conference does not have group rate agreements with any hotel proper-ties, save for the Renaissance Palm Springs and the Hilton Palm Springs, nor have we partnered with any travel agency or third-party for travel/hotel discounts. If you receive a call or an email offering assistance in making ho-tel reservations or changing existing reserva-tions, we advise caution. The Conference has no agreement with any organization to contact participants and offer reservation assistance, nor has attendee contact information been provided to anyone for this purpose.

12 13

Tuesday, April 10v 7:00-8:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast

v 9:30-10:00 a.m. Morning Beverage Break

v 8:00 a.m.-1:50 p.m. Platform Presentations

v 11:45 a.m.-12:15 p.m. Afternoon Beverage

Break

v Lunch on own, general lunch not provided

v 1:50 p.m. Technical Program Recesses

v 2:00-6:00 p.m. Short Courses

Sunday, April 8v 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. Short Courses

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

v 6:00–9:30 p.m. Welcome Reception, Exhibits,

Poster Group 1 Display

Monday, April 9v 7:00-8:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast

v 9:30-10:00 a.m. Morning Beverage Break

v 8:30–10:00 a.m. Plenary Session

v 10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. General Lunch

v 12:10-4:20 p.m. Platform Presentations

v 1:30-2:00 p.m. Afternoon Beverage Break

v 4:30-6:30 p.m. Group 1 Poster Presentations &

Networking Reception

PROGRAM AT A GLANCE

12 13

Program Topics

Emerging Contaminants: Sessions A1-A10

Remediation Technologies: Sessions B1-B9

Remediation Technology Developments: Sessions C1-C10

Assessing Remediation Effectiveness: Sessions D1-D6

Green and Sustainable Remediation: Sessions D7-D9

Fractured Rock: Sessions E1-E3

Addressing Challenging Site Conditions: Sessions E4-E10

Petroleum and Heavy Hydrocarbon Site Strategies: Sessions F1-F8

Vapor Intrusion: Sessions G1-G4

Technology Transfer and Stakeholder Communications: Sessions G5-G7

Metals: Sessions G8-G10

Characterization, Fate, and Transport: Sessions H1-H6

International Environmental Remediation Markets: Sessions I1-I3

Advanced Diagnostic Tools: Sessions I4-I9

PROGRAM AT A GLANCE

Wednesday, April 11v 7:00-8:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast

v 9:30-10:00 a.m. Morning Beverage Break

v 8:00 a.m.-4:20 p.m. Platform Presentations

v 11:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m. General Lunch

v 2:30-3:00 p.m. Afternoon Beverage Break

v 4:30-6:30 p.m. Group 2 Poster Presentations &

Networking Reception

Thursday, April 12v 7:00-8:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast

v 9:30-10:00 a.m. Morning Beverage Break

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

v 11:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m. General Lunch

v 2:30-3:00 p.m. Afternoon Beverage Break

v 4:00-5:00 p.m. Closing Cocktail Reception

*Specific times are subject to change in the

months leading up to the Conference.

The 80 sessions are organized according to

the major topics listed below. The seven panel

discussions are scheduled throughout the

technical program.

See the following pages for additional information:

v Pages 14-15: Overview of the platform sessions

and panels to be conducted each day. Times for

exhibits, breakfasts, lunches, and receptions.

v Pages 16-17: Poster Sessions in each of the two

poster groups.

v Pages 20-80: Titles and authors for the

presentations in each session. Titles beginning

with an asterisk (*) are to be presented as

poster presentations.

v Pages 81-97: Short Course descriptions for the

courses offered on Sunday and Tuesday.

MONDAY, APRIL 97:00 a.m.–7:00 p.m. Registration, Exhibits, Poster Group 1 Display

7:00–8:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast

8:30–10:00 a.m. Plenary Session

10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. General Lunch

1:30-2:00 p.m. Afternoon Beverage Break

TUESDAY, APRIL 107:00 a.m.–1:55 p.m. Registration, Exhibits, Poster Group 1 Display

7:00–8:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast

9:30-10:00 a.m. Morning Beverage Break

11:45a.m.–12:15 p.m. Afternoon Beverage Break

12:10-4:20 p.m. Platform Sessions & Learning Lab Demonstrations

A1. Insensitive MunitionsA2. Energetics, Perchlorate

B1. Thermal Remediation Design & Best Practices

C1. Electroenhanced TechnologiesC2. Heat-Enhanced Remediation

D1. Estimating Cleanup Timeframes and Modeling to Support Site ClosureD2. Big Data, Data Mining, and Portfolio Optimization

E1. Fractured Rock Site Characterization

F1. Natural Source Zone Depletion

G1. Vapor Intrusion Risk Assessment and Site ManagementG2. Vapor Intrusion Mitigation and Effectiveness

H1. Groundwater Modeling Advancements

I1. Advancing Environmental Science and Remediation in Vietnam

PANEL. International Perspectives on Management Approaches for PFASs

4:30–6:30 p.m. Poster Group 1 Presentations & Networking ReceptionSee pages 16-17 for presentations in Poster Group 1.

8:00 a.m.-1:50 p.m. Platform Sessions & Learning Lab Demonstrations

A3. Remediation of 1,4-DioxaneA4. Other Emerging Contaminants

B2. Monitored Natural AttenuationB3. Biological Remedies

C3. Innovative and Optimized Delivery MethodsC4. Horizontal Wells

D3. Optimizing Remedial SystemsD4. Advances in Monitoring Injection Effectiveness (e.g., Radius of Influence)

E2. Managing/Remediating Chlorinated Solvent Impacts at Fractured Bedrock SitesE3. Karst Aquifer Case Studies

F2. In Situ Remediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons

G3. Vapor Intrusion Preferential PathwaysG4. Advances in Vapor Intrusion Investigations

H2. Conceptual Site Models

I2. International Case StudiesI3. Botany “Mega” Site Cleanup Program

PANEL. Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD): Treatment Train Engine or Caboose?PANEL. How Can We Improve Groundwater Transport Modeling?PANEL. Enough Is Enough—When Do You Have Enough Data?

2:00–6:00 p.m. Short Courses

14

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 117:00 a.m.–7:00 p.m. Registration, Exhibits, Poster Group 2 Display

7:00–8:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast

9:30-10:00 a.m. Morning Beverage Break

11:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m. General Lunch

2:30-3:00 p.m. Afternoon Beverage Break

THURSDAY, APRIL 127:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m. Registration, Exhibits, Poster Group 2 Display

7:00–8:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast

9:30-10:00 a.m. Morning Beverage Break

11:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m. General Lunch

2:30-3:00 p.m. Afternoon Beverage Break

8:00 a.m.-4:20 p.m. Platform Sessions & Learning Lab Demonstrations

A5. Advances in the Analysis of Per-and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFAS)A6. PFAS Site CharacterizationA7. PFAS: Risk Assessment and Toxicity

B4. Abiotic and In Situ Biogeochemical ProcessesB5. Zero Valent Iron ApplicationsB6. In Situ Chemical Reduction

C5. Advances in AmendmentsC6. Injectable Activated Carbon AmendmentsC7. Surfactant-Enhanced Remediation

D5. Assessing Performance and Cost of RemediesD6. Applications of Mass Flux and Mass Discharge for Remedial Design/Optimization

E4. Adaptive Site Management and Risk Management StrategiesE5. Large, Dilute and Commingled Plume Case StudiesE6. Low-Permeability Zone Case Studies

F3. LNAPL Recovery/Remediation Technology TransitionsF4. Remediation of Heavy HydrocarbonsF5. MGPs

G5. Advances in Technology TransferG6. Stakeholder Success Stories and Risk Communication

H3. High-Resolution Site Characterization (HRSC)H4. Remediation Geology: Geology-Focused Approach to Remediation Site Management

I4. Compound-Specific Isotope AnalysisI5. Environmental ForensicsI6. Unmanned Systems for Remote Monitoring

PANEL. PFAS Precursors: Is It Too Early or Too Late to Worry About Them?PANEL. Building a Remedy with the End in Mind: Advances in Adaptive Management for Efficient Cleanup of Complex SitesPANEL. Accelerating the Use of Innovative Technologies: What is the Role of Pilot Testing, Demonstration, Verification, and Certification?

4:30–6:30 p.m. Poster Group 2 Presentations & Networking ReceptionSee page 17 for presentations in Poster Group 2.

8:00 a.m.-3:55 p.m. Platform Sessions8:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. Learning Lab Demonstrations

A8. PFAS Fate and TransportA9. PFAS: RemediationA10. Pump and Treat for PFAS Remediation

B7. Lessons Learned with In Situ TechnologiesB8. Lessons Learned in DNAPL Source Zone RemediationB9. In Situ Chemical Oxidation

C8. Phytoremediation/Mycoremediation and Plant UptakeC9. Combined Remedies and Treatment TrainsC10. Emerging Remediation Technologies

D7. Reusing and Revitalizing Contaminated SitesD8. GSR Best Practices and Case StudiesD9. GSR Metrics and Resiliency Evaluations

E7. Cold Region Case StudiesE8. Surface Water/Groundwater InteractionsE9. Landfill Redevelopment and ManagementE10. Radiological Issues

F6. TPH Risk Assessment and MetabolitesF7. Environmental Considerations for Hydraulic Fracturing/Shale Gas ProductionF8. Managing/Remediating Petroleum Impacts at Fractured Bedrock Sites

G7. Decision Analysis Tools for Environmental Restoration ApplicationsG8. Precipitation and Stabilization of MetalsG9. Managing Chromium-Contaminated Sites

H5. Improvements in Site Data Collection, Data Management, and Data VisualizationH6. Risk Assessment and Bioavailability Considerations

I7. Innovative Sampling and Investigation ToolsI8. Real-Time Analysis to Inform Decision-MakingI9. Use of Advanced Molecular Tools for Site Assessment or Remedy Performance

4:00-5:00 p.m. Closing Cocktail Reception

15

16

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

A1. Insensitive MunitionsA2. Energetics, PerchlorateA3. Remediation of 1,4-DioxaneA4. Other Emerging ContaminantsA5. Advances in the Analysis of Per-and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFAS)A6. PFAS Site Characterization

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.

A7. PFAS: Risk Assessment and ToxicityB1. Thermal Remediation Design & Best PracticesB2. Biological RemediesB3. Monitored Natural AttenuationB4. Abiotic and In Situ Biogeochemical ProcessesB5. Zero Valent Iron ApplicationsB6. In Situ Chemical ReductionC1. Electroenhanced TechnologiesC2. Heat-Enhanced RemediationC3. Innovative and Optimized Delivery MethodsC4. Horizontal Wells

17

POSTER SCHEDULE

D1. Estimating Cleanup Timeframes and Modeling to Support Site ClosureD2. Big Data, Data Mining, and Portfolio OptimizationD3. Optimizing Remedial SystemsD4. Advances in Monitoring Injection Effectiveness (e.g., Radius of Influence)E1. Fractured Rock Site CharacterizationE2. Managing/Remediating Chlorinated Solvent Impacts at Fractured Bedrock SitesE3. Karst Aquifer Case StudiesF1. Natural Source Zone DepletionF2. In Situ Remediation of Petroleum HydrocarbonsG1. Vapor Intrusion Risk Assessment and Site ManagementG2. Vapor Intrusion Mitigation and EffectivenessG3. Vapor Intrusion Preferential PathwaysG4. Advances in Vapor Intrusion InvestigationsH1. Groundwater Modeling AdvancementsH2. Conceptual Site ModelsI1. Advancing Environmental Science and Remediation in VietnamI2. International Case StudiesI3. Botany “Mega” Site Cleanup Project

Poster Group 2 Display: Wednesday 7:00 a.m.-Thursday 12:00 p.m. Presentations: Wednesday 4:30-6:30 p.m.

A8. PFAS Fate and TransportA9. PFAS: RemediationA10. Pump and Treat for PFAS RemediationB7. Lessons Learned with In Situ TechnologiesB8. Lessons Learned in DNAPL Source Zone

RemediationB9. In Situ Chemical OxidationC5. Advances in AmendmentsC6. Injectable Activated Carbon AmendmentsC7. Surfactant-Enhanced RemediationC8. Phytoremediation/Mycoremediation and Plant

UptakeC9. Combined Remedies and Treatment TrainsC10. Emerging Remediation TechnologiesD5. Assessing Performance and Cost of RemediesD6. Applications of Mass Flux and Mass Discharge

for Remedial Design/OptimizationD7. Reusing and Revitalizing Contaminated Sites

D8. GSR Best Practices and Case StudiesD9. GSR Metrics and Resiliency EvaluationsE4. Adaptive Site Management and Risk

Management StrategiesE5. Large, Dilute and Commingled Plume Case

StudiesE6. Low-Permeability Zone Case StudiesE7. Cold Region Case StudiesE8. Surface Water/Groundwater InteractionsE9. Landfill Redevelopment and ManagementE10. Radiological IssuesF3. LNAPL Recovery/Remediation Technology

TransitionsF4. Remediation of Heavy HydrocarbonsF5. MGPsF6. TPH Risk Assessment and MetabolitesF7. Environmental Considerations for Hydraulic

Fracturing/Shale Gas ProductionF8. Managing/Remediating Petroleum Impacts at

Fractured Bedrock SitesG5. Advances in Technology TransferG6. Stakeholder Success Stories and Risk

CommunicationG7. Decision Analysis Tools for Environmental

Restoration ApplicationsG8. Precipitation and Stabilization of MetalsG9. Managing Chromium-Contaminated SitesH3. High-Resolution Site Characterization (HRSC)H4. Remediation Geology: Geology-Focused Approach to Remediation Site ManagementH5. Improvements in Site Data Collection, Data Management, and Data VisualizationH6. Risk Assessment and Bioavailability ConsiderationsI4. Compound-Specific Isotope AnalysisI5. Environmental ForensicsI6. Unmanned Systems for Remote MonitoringI7. Innovative Sampling and Investigation ToolsI8. Real-Time Analysis to Inform Decision-MakingI9. Use of Advanced Molecular Tools for Site Assessment or Remedy Performance

18

PRESENTATIONS

Environmental laws and regulations are the foun-dation and driver for the remediation industry worldwide. Join Scott Fulton of the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) as he discusses key regulato-ry developments/changes that will shape efforts to provide meaningful and sustainable solutions to environmental challenges that the world will face in the years ahead. In addition, the talk will explore the evolving roles of government at all levels, the private sector, and the public in ensur-ing environmental protection. Since 2015, Scott Fulton has served as President of ELI, which is the world’s premier nonpartisan institute for building effective environmental governance and rule of law. ELI’s vision focuses on a “healthy environ-ment, prosperous economies, and vibrant commu-nities founded on rule of law.”

19

Monday Morning

8:30–10:00 a.m.

Welcome and Opening Remarks

Conference Program Chairs

Wendy Condit, PE (Battelle)

Ramona Darlington, Ph.D. (Battelle)

Presentation of Student Paper Awards

Plenary Address

Scott Fulton (Environmental Law Institute [ELI])

Prior to his leadership at ELI, Mr. Fulton was a Principal at the environmental law firm Beveridge & Diamond, and served as General Counsel of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Mr. Fulton also served in a number of other key lead-ership roles in both Republican and Democratic Administrations, including Acting EPA Deputy Administrator, head of EPA’s Office of Internation-al Affairs, Judge on the Environmental Appeals Board, and head of the Agency’s enforcement program. He served as well as Assistant Chief of the Environmental Enforcement Section of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Environment and Natural Resources Division. Learn more about Scott Fulton and ELI at: https://www.eli.org/bios/scott-fulton

Plenary Session

Breakout Sessions and PanelsThe 80 sessions are grouped into 9 tracks (A–I). 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 December 5, 2017. 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.

20

A1. Insensitive MunitionsPlatforms Monday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Mark E. Fuller (Aptim Federal Services) and Mandy Michalsen (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)

* 1,3-Dinitrobenzene Reductive Degradation by Alkaline Ascorbic Acid: Reaction Mechanisms, Degradation Pathways, and Reagent Optimization. C. Ciou and C. Liang. Chenju Liang (National Chung Hsing University/Taiwan)

* Adsorption of Munitions Constituents via Cellulose, Cellulose Triacetate, Chitin, and Chitosan. L. Gurtowski, M.K. Shukla and C.S. Griggs. Luke A. Gurtowski (U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center/USA)

Cometabolic Degradation of Insensitive Munitions Constituents during Nitrification. J.L. Johnson. Jared L. Johnson (U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center/USA)

Energetics Residue Deposition from the Detonation of U.S. Insensitive Munitions. M.F. Bigl, S.A. Beal, and M.R. Walsh. Matthew F. Bigl (U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory/USA)

* Fenton Oxidation of Constituents with Insensitive Munitions Formulation IMX-101. L. Gurtowski, J.L. Johnson, D. Felt, and S. Larson. Luke A. Gurtowski (U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center/USA)

Incorporating Transformation Products into Models of the Environmental Fate of Insensitive Munition Constituents. P.G. Tratnyek, T.L. Torralba-Sanchez, E.J. Bylaska, J. Hawari, and B.E. Johnson. Paul Tratnyek (Oregon Health & Science University/USA)

* Insensitive Munitions are Different: Environmental Management and Cost Implications of IM Articles. J.L. Johnson, L. Gurtowski, D. Felt, and S. Larson. Jared L. Johnson (U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center/USA)

* Optimization of Blow-in-Place Procedures for the Effective Detonation of Insensitive Munitions. S. Thiboutot, P. Brousseau, E. Diaz, M.R. Walss, and M.E. Walsh. Sonia Thiboutot (DRDC Valcartier/Canada)

Photodegradation of Insensitive Munitions Compounds. M.K. Shukla. Manoj Shukla (USACE/USA)

A2. Energetics, PerchloratePlatforms Monday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Kate Kucharzyk (Battelle) and Kevin Morris (ERM)

* Bioremediation of Perchlorate and Nitrate Using a Slow Release Electron Donor. S. Shrestha, J. Gonzales, J. Batista, and R. Britto. Jacimaria Batista (University of Nevada Las Vegas/USA)

Evaluation of Perchlorate Sources in a Southern California Aquifer Using Four Different Isotopic Measurements. P.B. Hatzinger, L. Heraty, N.C. Sturchio, J.K. Bohlke, and J.A. Izbicki. Paul Hatzinger (APTIM Federal Services, LLC/USA)

Ex Situ Treatment of Perchlorate, Metals, VOCs, and Pesticides in Groundwater. B. Robinson, T.J. Slater, K. Deeny, and J. Barnes. Jacob Barnes (ERM/USA)

* Field-Scale Treatability Study to Evaluate In Situ Soil Mixing of EVO and ZVI to Reduce Nitroaromatics in Saturated and Vadose Zones. S. Downey, R. Mayer, and R. Meadows. Steven Downey (APTIM Federal Services, LLC/USA)

Impact of Microscale Energetic Residues on Range Contamination Issues. M.E. Fuller, C.E. Schaefer, C. Andaya, and S. Fallis. Mark E. Fuller (Aptim Federal Services/USA)

Integrated Large-Scale Remediation of Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compounds and Perchlorate in Soil: Bermite Facility, Santa Clarita, California. H. Amini and W.J. Weaver. Hassan Amini (Wood/USA)

Remediation of Perchlorate-Impacted Vadose Zone Hydraulically Upgradient of an Industrial Site. M. Behrooz. Mona Behrooz (California Regional Water Quality Control Board/USA)

* Trade-Offs in Utilizing Zero-Valent Iron for Synergistic Biotic and Abiotic Reduction of Trichloroethene and Perchlorate. S. Mohana Rangan, A. Mouti, A.G. Delgado, R. Krajmalnik-Brown, G.V. Lowry, L. LaPat-Polasko, and H. Brenton. Srivatsan Mohana Rangan (Arizona State University/USA)

A3. Remediation of 1,4-DioxanePlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Alison Cupples (Michigan State University) and William DiGuiseppi (CH2M HILL)

* 1,4-Dioxane Biodegradation at Low Concentrations. C. Zhou, Y. Xiong, Y. Tang, and S. Dworatzek. Chao Zhou (Geosyntec Consultants/USA)

21

* Evaluation of Multiple Remediation Strategies to Enhance Treatment of 1,4-Dioxane with Combined Oxidant Technologies. J. Byrd, E. Hollifield, and P. Dugan. Jennifer Byrd (ERM/USA)

* Field-Scale Evaluation of In Situ Biodegradation of 1,4-Dioxane via Bioaugmentation with Pseudonocardia dioxanivorans CB1190. L. LaPat-Polasko, D. Taggart, S. Rosolina, K. Clark, B.R. Baldwin, A. Polasko, and S. Mahendra. Laurie LaPat-Polasko (Matrix New World Engineering/USA)

* In Situ Propane and Oxygen Biosparging for Cometabolic Bioremediation of 1,4-Dioxane. C. Bell, M. Heintz, A. Krevinghaus, and D. Favero. Caitlin Bell (Arcadis/USA)

* Investigation and Remediation of Groundwater Contaminated with the Emerging Contaminant 1,4-Dioxane in Glacial Till and Fractured Bedrock Associated with a Former Medical WasteDisposal Area in Hanover, New Hampshire. J.M. Wieck, S.R. Lamb, and M. O’Leary. James M. Wieck (GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc./USA)

* Isolation and Characterization of Bioaugmentation Strains for 1,4-Dioxane Bioremediation. J. Mathieu, Y. Yang, C. Schwarz, Y. He, and P.J.J. Alvarez. Jacques Mathieu (Rice University/USA)

* Low-Temperature Heat Injection for 1,4-Dioxane Source Zone Remediation. G. Alexander, R. Logan, R. Strandberg, S. Crawford, and D. Keane. Gordon Alexander (Kennedy/Jenks Consultants/USA)

* A Novel Putative Propane Monooxygenase Initiating Metabolism of 1,4-Dioxane. D. Deng, F. Li, and M. Li. Mengyan Li (New Jersey Institute of Technology/USA)

Optimizing a Mixed Microbial Community to Biodegrade Chlorinated Ethenes and 1,4-Dioxane. A. Polasko, A. Zulli, S. Mahendra, S. Dworatzek, E. Mack, and C. Walecka-Hutchinson. Alexandra Polasko (UCLA/USA)

* Overcoming Water Treatment Challenges for 1,4-Dioxane Using AMBERSORB™ Resin. P. Groff Robertson, R. Johnson, M. Kaplan, S. Kretschman, and S. Woodard. Pamela Groff (WSP USA/USA)

* Performance Comparison of Three Different Treatment Technologies for In Situ Remediation of a 1,4-Dioxane Plume in a Heterogeneous Aquifer. P. Hsieh, Y. He, and M. Silva. Patrick Hsieh (Dalton Olmsted & Fugelvand, Inc./USA)

* Phylogenetic and Functional Fluorescent Probes for Culture-Independent Identification and Cell Sorting of Indigenous 1,4-Dioxane Degraders. M. Li, Y. Yang, and P.J.J. Alvarez. Mengyan Li (New Jersey Institute of Technology/USA)

* Aerobic Degradation of 1,4-Dioxane in a Fixed-Film Bioreactor with Toluene, Other Volatiles and Phenolics as Co-Contaminants. P.W. Hare, M.R. Harkness, P.L. D’Annibale, D.F. Sauda, and L.S. Streeter. Paul Hare (OBG/USA)

* Applied Research of Adsorptive Media: Troubleshooting the Impact of Hidden Organic Material. K. Foster, M. Nickelsen, M.D. Basel, and R.C. Luhrs. Michael D. Basel (Haley & Aldrich, Inc./USA)

* Bench- and Pilot-Scale Testing of Aerobic Biological and Advanced Oxidation Process Treatment Methods for Chlorinated Constituents and 1,4-Dioxane in Steam-Enhanced Extraction Condensate. J. Bunton, R. Wenzel, R. Stuetzle, L. Cordone, T. Schoenberg, J. Fettig, K. King, O. Hrycyk, and A. Biniwale. Ted Schoenberg (Parsons/USA)

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

* Biodegradation of 1,4-Dioxane in a Moving Bed Bioreactor. C. Bell, J.C. Stanfill, and D. Favero. Caitlin Bell (Arcadis/USA)

* Cometabolic Degradation of 1,4-Dioxane by a Novel Gram-Negative Propanotrophic Bacterial Isolate. D. Deng, F. Li, and M. Li. Mengyan Li (New Jersey Institute of Technology/USA)

Cometabolic Treatment of Emerging Contaminants including 1,4-Dioxane, 1,2-Dibromoethane, and N-Nitrosodimethylamine. P.B. Hatzinger, D.L. Lippincott, and J.F. Begley. Paul Hatzinger (APTIM Federal Services, LLC/USA)

Comparison of Cometabolic Removal of 1,4-Dioxane by Different Methanotrophic Strains. Y. Zhang, D. Deng, and M. Li. Mengyan Li (New Jersey Institute of Technology/USA)

* Degradation of Cyclic Ethers by Microorganisms Isolated from Contaminated Groundwater. R. Thompson. Rowan Thompson (GEI Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Delineating and Treating 1,4-Dioxane and VOCs at the Nuclear Metals, Inc. Superfund Site. B. Thompson, J. Hunt, D. Fuerst, D. Adilman, C. Arsenault, and C. Elder. Bruce Thompson (de maximis, inc./USA)

* The Development of Microcosms to Achieve Anaerobic 1,4-Dioxane Biodegradation. V. Ramalingam and A.M. Cupples. Vidhya Ramalingam (Michigan State University/USA)

* Enhancement of Intrinsic 1,4-Dioxane Biodegradation. A.S. Madison, T. Richards, R. Illes, Y. Miao, and S. Mahendra. Andrew Madison (Golder Associates, Inc./USA)

* = poster presentations

22

* Propane Biostimulation for Effective 1,4-Dioxane Removal: Enrichment and Microbial Structure Analysis. M. Li, D. Deng, Y. Liu, Y. He, and P.J.J. Alvarez. Mengyan Li (New Jersey Institute of Technology/USA)

* Short-Chain Alkane Monooxygenase (SCAM) and Cometabolic 1,4-Dioxane Biodegradation by Gaseous Alkane-Oxidizing Bacteria. W. Chen and M. Hyman. Weijue Chen (North Carolina State University/USA)

Single-Well Push-Pull Tests to Assess the Biostimulation of Isobutane-Utilizing Microorganisms and Their Potential for 1,4-Dioxane Cometabolism. H.M. Rolston, M.F. Azizian, L. Semprini, and M.R. Hyman. Hannah Rolston (Oregon State University/USA)

Treatment of 1,4-Dioxane and CVOCs by Bioaugmented Granular Activated Carbon and Bioaugmented Synthetic Zeolite. N.W. Johnson, S. Mohanty, S. Mahendra, Y. Liu, P. Pornwongthong, E. Mack, and C. Walecka-Hutchison. Nicholas Wade Johnson (University of California, Los Angeles/USA)

Treatment of Mixed Chlorinated Solvents and 1,4-Dioxane in Groundwater: Testing of Two Biodegradation Strategies. C. Bucior, S. Dore, D. Pope, R. Thomas, A. Weston, and F. Blickle. Sophia Dore (GHD/USA)

A4. Other Emerging ContaminantsPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Paul Hare (OBG) and Shaily Mahendra (University of California, Los Angeles)

* 1,2,3-Trichloropropane Regulatory Compliance Strategies and Treatment System Design Considerations. G. Graening, M. Goh, and A. Wilson. Guy Graening (TRC Solutions, Inc./USA)

1,2,3-Trichloropropane: Insights from Data Mining of Occurrence and Cleanup Site Databases. M. Gentile, E. Kalve, and S. Justicia-Leon. Margaret Gentile (Arcadis/USA)

* Adsorption of N-Nitrosodimethylamine onto Activated Carbons from Pecan Shells and Soft Wood Barks. G. Hernandez, E. Lopez, L. Derry, D. Ellis, C. Bianconi, P.K. Andersen, and C.E. Brewer. Gustavo Hernandez (New Mexico State University/USA)

* Challenges of Managing a Low Concentration 1,2,3-Trichloropropane Site in California. D. Croteau and C. Voci. Darren Croteau (Terraphase Engineering, Inc./USA)

* Emerging Contaminants: What’s Next? R. Patel and J. Claypool. Radhika Patel (Brown and Caldwell/USA)

Emerging Contaminants: What’s Next? A Look at the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act. D. Nelson, K. Sellers, and N. Weinberg. Denice Nelson (ERM/USA)

* Fate of 17a-Ethynylestradiol in the Presence of Vegetable Wastes. R.M. Zayyat and M.T. Suidan. Ramez Zayyat (American University of Beirut/Lebanon)

* Implications of the California MCL for 1,2,3-Trichloropropane for Existing Remedial Systems and Future Site Remediation Strategy. H. Gupta and J.E. Claypool. Hari Gupta (Brown and Caldwell/USA)

* A Novel Quantification Method for N-Nitrosodimethylamine for Laboratory-Scale Research Applications. D.A. Amidei, J. Rodriguez, S. Macklin, K. Sanchez, A. Torres, P.K. Andersen, and C.E. Brewer. David A. Amidei (New Mexico State University/USA)

Pharmaceuticals and Other Emerging Contaminants in Sewage: An Overview of Current Cleanup Techniques, R&D Approaches, and Needs. F. Langschwager, C. Schütt, H. Burmeier, and V. Birke. Fanny Langschwager (Wismar University/Germany)

Reduction of 1,2,3-Trichloropropane and Other Chlorinated Propanes. A.J. Salter-Blanc, P.G. Tratnyek, Y. Lan, and E.J. Bylaska. Alexandra Salter-Blanc (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Re-Emergence or Have They Emerged? Same Old Contaminants but New Tricks. P.J. Dugan. Pamela Dugan (Carus Corporation/USA)

* There’s Too Much in the Water: VOCs, APIs, Polar Solvents and Many Unknowns. B. Eccarius. Bernd Eccarius (ERM/Germany)

* Treatability Testing and Remedial Design for In Situ Remediation of Chloropicrin. C.S. Martin, C.M. Ross, R.E. Scott, C.M. Greene, J. Roberts, and A. Przepiora. Chris Martin (Geosyntec Consultants/USA)

* Widespread Distribution of Herbicide Safeners Benoxacor and Furilazole and Assessment of Environmental Biodegradation Potential. S. Poudel Acharya and J. Weidhaas. Jennifer Weidhaas (University of Utah/USA)

Zinc Oxide as a Promising Photocatalyst for Emerging Contaminants Removal. M. Hwangbo, Y. Shi, B.S. Abada, and K.H. Chu. Myung Hwangbo (Texas A&M University/USA)

* = poster presentations

23

Panel Discission—Wednesday, Track A

PFAS Precursors: Is It Too Early or Too Late to Worry About Them?

ModeratorsDora Chiang (AECOM)

Ginny Yingling (Minnesota Department of Health)

PanelistsChris Higgins (Colorado School of Mines)

Jennifer Guelfo (Brown University)Rachel Casson (AECOM)

Richard Grace (SGS AXYS)Nathan Hagelin (Wood)

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been manufactured and used for the past fifty years as surfactants, processing aids, oil and water repellent coatings, and firefighting foams. Perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs), which include perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), are persistent and recalcitrant and have been widely detected in the environment and human sera. Some polyfluorinated precursors to PFAAs can biotically and/or abiotically transform into PFAAs. Although no regulatory criteria have been established for PFAA precursors, concerns regarding their migration and transformation into PFAAs is growing. PFAA precursors include compounds that were the original compositions of PFAS-containing products or intermediate transformation products.

The number of precursors measurable with standard analytical methods (typically LC-MS/MS) is very limited. However, several analytical methods have been developed to estimate total fluorine concentrations and results suggest significant mass of PFAA precursors may be present at some sites. This has implications for how the PFAS signature and potential ecological or human health risks at a site may evolve over time. It is important to understand how and at what rates PFAA precursors are transformed and transported once released into the environment, what ecological and health risks they may pose, and what challenges they may present for site remediation. The panel will discuss what a practitioner should know about PFAA precursors and what research priorities are essential BEFORE we can properly and reliably determine the data needed for site investigation and remediation.

A5. Advances in the Analysis of Per-and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFAS)Platforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Bharat Chandramouli (SGS AXYS) and Kavitha Dasu (Battelle)

The Analysis of PFAS in AFFF Products: Application of Isotope Dilution Mass Spectrometry and TOP. B. Chandramouli, R. Grace, M. Woudneh, and M.C. Hamilton. Bharat Chandramouli (SGS AXYS/Canada)

Analyte Loss in PFAS Analysis: Evidence from Internal Standard, Spiked Analyte, and Interlaboratory Split Sample Recoveries. S.F. Gormley, A. Bernhardt, M.L. Bevier, C. Larsen, J. Wetmore, N. Perry-Freer, and S. Thomas. Sean Gormley (Wood/USA)

* Application of a PFAS Mobile Laboratory Enables Dynamic Work Strategies at PFAS Site. M. Rossi, H. Korb, S. Pitkin, J. Quinnan, P. Curry, and A. Villhauer. Michael Rossi (Cascade/USA)

* Closing the PFAS Mass Balance: The Total Oxidizable Precursor (TOP) Assay. K.S. Buechler and E.W. Redman. Karla Buechler (TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc./USA)

* Evaluation of TRIZMA as a Preservative for the Analysis of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in a Variety of Aqueous Matrices. A. Patterson, M. Maier, and A. Clarke. Andrew Patterson (Vista Analytical/USA)

* A Holding-Time Evaluation Study for the Analysis of PFAS in Aqueous Samples. C.J. Neslund. Charles Neslund (Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories Environmental, LLC/USA)

* PFAS Analysis by Total Oxidizable Precursor (TOP) Assay. M. Hall, J. Tennant, C. Muller, and L. Portwood. Jeff Grindstaff (ALS Environmental/USA)

* PFAS Detection in Laboratory and Equipment Blanks: Implications for Data Usability and Control of Cross Contamination. S.F. Gormley, A. Bernhardt, M.L. Bevier, H. Mariska, C. Larsen, J. Wetmore, N. Perry-Freer, and S. Thomas. Sean Gormley (Wood/USA)

Quantification of Perfluorinated Compounds in Environmental Water Samples by Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry. R. Stewart, P. Hoffmann, B. Dilmetz, and M. Condina. Richard Stewart (Ziltek Pty., Ltd./Australia)

Recent Advances in the Analysis of Poly- and Per-Fluoroalkylated Substances (PFASs). K. Dasu. Kavitha Dasu (Battelle/USA)

* = poster presentations

24

* A Technique for Determining Total Oxidizable Precursors (TOPs) of Perfluoroalkyl Compounds. C.J. Neslund. Charles Neslund (Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories Environmental, LLC/USA)

* Testing Commonly Used Insect Repellents for 17 PFAS. S. Bartlett, K. Davis, and R. Kennedy. Sam Bartlett (AECOM/USA)

A6. PFAS Site CharacterizationPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Dora Chiang (AECOM) and Ravi Naidu (University of South Australia)

* Case Study: Identification of Perfluoroalkyl Acids and Source Trackdown in the Metedeconk River Watershed, New Jersey. N. Procopio, S. Goodrow, L. Lippincott, J. Louis, R. Karl, J. Maggio, and J. Rouse. Sandra Goodrow (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection/USA)

* A Case History of PFAS at Historical Fire Training Area OU1, Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota. L.W. Todd and M. Jensen. Levi Todd (Ayuda Companies/USA)

* Conceptual Site Model for PFAS Release, Occurrence, and Migration. J. Hatton and W. DiGuiseppi. James W. Hatton (CH2M HILL/USA)

Detailed Site Investigation of Unsaturated and Saturated Zones of a Fire Training Area for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) Using Advanced Analytical Tools. E.F. Houtz, A. Horneman, A.G. Christensen, I. Ross, J. Burdick. J. Hurst, and J. Miles. Erika Houtz (Arcadis/USA)

Detection of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) following Firefighting Foam Deployment during the Lac-Megantic Railway Accident. J. Liu, S. Mejia-Avendaño, G. Munoz, S. Sauvé, M. Desrosiers, and P. Benoît. Jinxia Liu (McGill University/Canada)

* Developing Interactive Site Models to Overcome Challenges Associated with PFAS Site Investigation and Characterization. B.R. Hoye and C. Gepner. Brian Hoye (Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc./USA)

* First Evaluation of PFOA and PFOS Flux Measurement Using Passive Flux Meters. D. Pohlmann, A. Stawowy, R. Morrish, M. Annable, J. Cho, and M. Marrs. Dirk Pohlmann (Bay West LLC/USA)

* Non-Traditional Sources of Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFAS). R. Bennett, A.P.T. Macdonald, and S. Marconetto. Ross Bennett (Golder Associates Inc./USA)

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: From Operational Use of AFFF to Impacted Water Supply to Class Action Lawsuit. S. Richards and F. Lauzon. Sasha Richards (Stantec Consulting Ltd./Canada)

* PFAS Passive Sampler. E.M. Kaltenberg and F. Pala. Eliza Kaltenberg (Battelle/USA)

* PFAS Site Investigations: Danish Guidelines. J.A. Falkenberg, D. Harrekilde, and N.I. Thomsen. Dorte Harrekilde (Ramboll/Denmark)

* Trends in PFAS in Fish from Pool 2 of the Upper Mississippi River. J.L. Newsted and R. Holem. John Leslie Newsted (Natural Resource Technology, Inc./USA)

The U.S. Air Force Enterprise-Wide Response to PFASs: Presentation of All Meta-Data to Date. R.H. Anderson. Hunter Anderson (U.S. Air Force/USA)

* Use of Composite Sampling to Characterize PFAS Impacts for Health Risk Assessment in Commercially Important Seafood Species. R. Smit. Roisin Smit (AECOM/Australia)

A7. PFAS: Risk Assessment and ToxicityPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Meredith Frenchmeyer (Arcadis) and Shalene Thomas (Wood)

* Australian Case Study of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Using an “Outside-In” Approach. A.M. Rodolakis and A.R. Quintin. Antony Rodolakis (Wood/USA)

* Empirical Bioaccumulation Factors for PFAS: Establishing Trends for Guiding Site Assessments. V. Lazenby. Victoria Lazenby (Arcadis Australia Pacific Pty Ltd/Australia)

* Estimating Safe Level of PFOA/PFOS in Human Blood Using Clinical Margins of Safety. S.R. Clough and J. Peters. Stephen Clough (Haley & Aldrich, Inc./USA)

* Evolution of PFAS in Australia: Investigation, Risk Perception, Communication, and Management. R. Edwards. Ross Edwards (Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd/Australia)

* Guidance on Managing PFAS Contamination in Australia. J.N. Jit, B.P. Kennedy, and R. Naidu. Joytishna Jit (CRC CARE / UniSA/Australia)

* = poster presentations

25

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): Addressing Limited Toxicity Data for Site Characterization. L. Hall. Linda C. Hall (GSI Environmental, Inc./USA)

PFAS and Risk Assessment: Overview of the State of the Practice. S. Thomas and M. Frenchmeyer. Shalene Thomas (Wood/USA)

* PFAS Uptake into Biota, and Detailed Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment: An Australian Defence Base Case Study. B. Houghton, K. Hanson, and K. Richardson. Brad Houghton (Senversa/Australia)

* PFASs Soil-to-Earthworm Uptake Factors. A.M. Rodolakis, N.T. Glover, and J. Berry. Antony Rodolakis (Wood/USA)

Risk Communication in Emerging Contaminants: NGWA PFAS Guidance. M.A. Harclerode, E. Emmett, and L. Hall. Melissa Harclerode (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

* Risk-Based Assessment, Management and Remediation of PFAS-Contaminated Soil and Groundwater. P. Nadebaum, T. Hammond, E. Friebel, J. Woodworth, P. Flukes, J. Jit, and B. Kennedy. Peter Nadebaum (GHD/Australia)

* A Risk-Based Geospatial Framework to Evaluate Sources of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) Groundwater Impacts. J. Guelfo, T. Marlow, S. Frickel, and E. Suuberg. Jennifer Guelfo (Brown University/USA)

The Science Behind the PFAS Drinking Water Health Advisory and How It Affects Risk Management Decision Making. D. Marquez and B. Hoye. Diana Marquez (Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc./USA)

What Are Key Considerations for an Approach to Human Health Intake Assessment for PFAS? A. Lee and M. Archer. Amanda Lee (AECOM/Australia)

A8. PFAS Fate and TransportPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Hunter Anderson (U.S. Air Force) and Andrew Mitchell (Department of Defence)

Fate and Transport Modeling of PFOS in a Fractured Chalk Aquifer towards a Large-Scale Drinking Water Abstraction. I. Ross, J. Hurst, J. Miles, E. Houtz, J. McDonough, and J. Burdick. Ian Ross (Arcadis/United Kingdom)

* Impact of Biopile Remediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons on Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) as Co-Contaminants. J. Liu, S. Mejia-Avendaño, G. Munoz, S. Sauvé, M. Desrosiers, and P. Benoît. Jinxia Liu (McGill University/Canada)

* Investigation of PFAS Contamination from Land-Applied Industrial Compost and AFFF Sources. I. Ross, T. Held, J. Miles, J. Hurst, E. Houtz, and J. Burdick. Ian Ross (Arcadis/United Kingdom)

* Long-Range Transport (LRT) of PFAS. L.J. Trozzolo. Laura J. Trozzolo (TRC/USA)

* PFAS, TOP Assay, and Risk Assessment: Understanding Trends in Polyfluorinated Precursor Compound Distribution. V. Lazenby and E. Houtz. Victoria Lazenby (Arcadis Australia Pacific Pty Ltd/Australia)

* Portfolio Assessment of Key Factors Influencing PFASs Fate/Transport Including: pH, DO, ORP, TOC, CEC, and Grain Size Distribution. K. Tull, N. Hagelin, and D. Woodward. Kerry Tull (Wood/USA)

* Roadmap for Ranking PFAS-Contaminated Sites Based on Exposure Pathway Analysis. A. Lee, M. Archer, and G. Williams. Amanda Lee (AECOM/Australia)

The Role of Surface Water and Stormwater Transport of Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in the Creation of a Groundwater “Mega-Plume,” Washington County, Minnesota. V. Yingling. Virginia Yingling (Minnesota Department of Health/USA)

Site-Specific Desorption Testing of Perfluorononanoic Acid (PFNA) to Assess Potential Soil Leaching to Groundwater. S.O. Helgen, M. Marietta, C. Hutchings, and E. Palko. Steven Helgen (Integral Consulting, Inc./USA)

* Standardized Approaches for Risk Ranking Portfolio of Sites Impacted with PFASs. I. Ross, J. Hurst, J. Miles, E. Houtz, J. McDonough, and J. Burdick. Ian Ross (Arcadis/United Kingdom)

* Toward Understanding the Fate and Transport of AFFF-Related Contaminants within Deep Vadose Zones. J.A.K. Silva, M.F. Warminsky, and W.A. Martin. Jeffrey A.K. Silva (GSI Pacific, Inc/USA)

Transformation of PFAS Precursors at an Australian Air Force Base: An Ongoing or Artifact Process? R. Casson, D. Chiang, and V. Pearce. Rachael Casson (AECOM/Australia)

* Understanding Fate and Transport of PFASs to Develop Effective Conceptual Site Models. I. Ross, D. Atkinson, J. Lemon, J. Miles, J. Hurst, E. Houtz, and J. Burdick. Ian Ross (Arcadis/United Kingdom)

* = poster presentations

26

A9. PFAS: RemediationPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Nathan Hagelin (Wood) and Hans Stroo (Stroo Consulting, LLC)

* Adsorption of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Using Graphene-Based Materials. S. Lath, M.J. McLaughlin, D. Navarro, D. Losic, A. Kumar, and R. Stewart. Supriya Lath (University of Adelaide/Australia)

Applications of Electrochemical Oxidation for PFAS Destruction in Water, Liquid, and Solid Wastes. D. Chiang, S. Liang, R. Casson, R. Mora, and Q. Huang. Dora Chiang (AECOM/USA)

* Chemical Oxidation of PFAS: Insight into Applying Demonstrated Technology for Recalcitrant and Persistent Compound Class. P.M. Dombrowski, P. Kakarla, W. Caldicott, Y. Chin, D. Bogdan, V. Sadeghi, F. Barajas, and D. Chiang. Paul Dombrowski (In-Situ Oxidative Technologies [ISOTEC]/USA)

* Comparison of Different Approaches for Removal of PFAS in Water. J. Buhl. Jurgen Buhl (Cornelsen Umwelttechnologie GmbH/Germany)

Field Demonstration to Enhance PFAS Degradation and Mass Removal Using Thermally-Enhanced Persulfate Followed by Pump-and-Treat. J. Kornuc, R.A. Deeb, and D.L. Sedlak. John Kornuc (U.S. Navy, EXWC/USA)

* First In Situ Treatment of PFAS Ever? Lessons Learned and Questions Raised. J. Birnstingl, R. McGregor, and G. Carey. Jeremy Birnstingl (Regenesis/United Kingdom)

Full-Scale Treatment of PFAS-Impacted Wastewater Using Ozofractionation. P.J. Storch, J. Lagowski, M. Dickson, D. Solomon, and I. Ross. Peter Storch (ARCADIS/Australia)

* Immobilization of PFAS-Impacted Soil: Comparison of Amendments and Performance Metrics for Australian Soils. A. Nolan, D. Toase, and C. Grimison. Annette Nolan (Ventia Pty Ltd/Australia)

* In Situ Treatment of PFAS in Groundwater and Other Tall Tales. C.H. Nelson and W. Caldicott. Christopher Nelson (eMinus LLC/USA)

* Integrated Soil and Water Treatment System for Source Areas of PFAS-Impacted Sites. C. Morrell, C. Grimison, and S. Barthelme. Charles Grimison (Ventia/Australia)

* Investigation and Remediation of Multiple PFAS Source Zones at an Airport to Safeguard an At-Risk Water Supply. I. Ross, D. Atkinson, J. Lemon, J. Miles, J. Hurst, E. Houtz, and J. Burdick. Ian Ross (Arcadis/United Kingdom)

matCARETM: A Novel Technology for Efficient Remediation of PFAS-Contaminated Wastewater and Soil. R. Naidu and S. Chadalavada. Ravi Naidu (University of South Australia/Australia)

* Optimizing the PFAS Puzzle: Piecing Together a Holistic PFAS Restoration Strategy. J. McDonough, I. Ross, J. Miles, K. Nowack, E. Houtz, and J. Burdick. Jeff McDonough (ARCADIS/USA)

* Per- and Polyfluoralkyl Substance (PFAS) Impacts of Stormwater Retention Ponds from Emergency Fire Response at Recycling Center. J.R. Dickson and C.F. Winkeljohn. James Dickson (CTI and Associates, Inc./USA)

* Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): Treatment Options for Soil and Groundwater. G.M. Birk, D.F. Alden, and A. Archibald. Gary Birk (Tersus Environmental, LLC/USA)

PFAS Thermal Treatment of Soil Demonstrated in Multiple Pilot Tests. W.H. DiGuiseppi, R. Richter, R. Grace, T. Fitzpatrick, R. Darlington, G. Colgan, L. Cook, and K. Rabe. William DiGuiseppi (CH2M HILL/USA)

Regeneration of Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Used for Per- and Polyfluorinated Substance (PFAS) Remediation. R. Darlington, K. Dasu, F. Pala, and E. Kaltenberg. Ramona Darlington (Battelle/USA)

Removal and Destruction of Perfluoro- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) from Contaminated Groundwater through Application of Advanced Reductive Processes (ARPs). R. Tenorio, T.J. Strathmann, J.B. Brown, A. Maizel, C. Bellona, C.P. Higgins, J. Liu, D. Jiang, B. Gómez-Ruiz, H. Wright, and C.E. Schaefer. Timothy Strathmann (Colorado School of Mines/USA)

* The Sorption of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Australian Soils. E.R. Knight, M.J. McLaughlin, D. Navarro, L. Janik, and R. Kookana. Emma Rae Knight (University of Adelaide/Australia)

* A Sustainable Alternative to Excavation of PFAS Source Areas. J. McDonough, P. Storch, I. Ross, E. Houtz, and A. Gupta. Jeff McDonough (ARCADIS/USA)

* Treatment of AFFF-Impacted Groundwater Using an Electrochemical and Biological Treatment Train Approach. C.E. Schaefer, C. Andaya, A. Burant, L. Ferguson, S. Choyke, C. Condee, T. Strathmann, and C. Higgins. Charles Schaefer (CDM Smith/USA)

* = poster presentations

27

A10. Pump and Treat for PFAS RemediationPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Christopher Higgins (Colorado School of Mines) and Robert Mueller (State of New Jersey)

Accelerated Deployment and Startup of Ion Exchange Groundwater Treatment System Addresses PFAS Contamination at Australian Air Base. S. Woodard. Steven Woodard (ECT/USA)

* Applicability of Carbon Adsorption to More Challenging Matrices Such as Landfill Leachate. S.A. Grieco. Scott Grieco (OBG/USA)

* Case Study: Lessons Learned on Perfluorinated Compounds and Groundwater Issues during Construction. S.R. Nelson, C. Stefanelli, K. Carpenter, and M. Montemayor-Rapier. Steve Nelson (City of Austin/USA)

* Challenges, Optimization, and Lessons Learned Treating PFASs in Groundwater Using Granular Activated Carbon and Synthetic Media. D. Woodward, K. Falk, N. Hagelin, C. Theriault, and B. Malyk. Dave Woodward (Wood/USA)

* Design and Implementation of a Groundwater Remediation System for PFAS Compounds through Modification of Existing Remedial Infrastructure. E.M. Germon and W.K. Crow. Matt Germon (CH2M HILL/USA)

An Enhanced Contact Electrical Discharge Plasma Reactor: An Effective Technology to Degrade Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). S. Mededovic Thagard, T. Holsen, S. Richardson, P. Kulkarni, C. Newell, M. Nixon, A. Bodour, and C. Varley. Stephen Richardson (GSI Environmental, Inc./USA)

* Fate and Transport of PFAS in a Multi-Stage Groundwater Treatment Plant. J.R. Stening and S. Huo. James Stening (Orica Australia Pty Ltd/Australia)

* PFAS and 1,4-Dioxane Treatment for Drinking Water System Optimization. S. Abrams, L. Zeng, N. Najib, A. Ciblak, C. Barnes, and R. Andersen. Stewart Abrams (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services Inc./USA)

A Pilot-Scale GAC Filtration Study to Assess Breakthroughs of PFAAs and Precursors. D. Chiang, A.E. Robel, J. Field, Q. Huang, A. Bodour, and C. Varley. Dora Chiang (AECOM/USA)

* Practical Aspects of Implementing a 5-MGD Treatment System for Removal of PFOA and PFOS from a Public Drinking Water Supply. S. Grieco, G. Rest, and N. Venkatesan. Scott Grieco (OBG/USA)

Removal of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances with Nanofiltration Membranes in Laboratory and Site Studies. C. Liu, J. Brown, C. Higgins, C. Bellona, and T. Strathmann. Charlie Jeffrey Liu (Colorado School of Mines/USA)

* Repurpose and Optimization of an Existing Groundwater Pump and Treat System for Removal of Perflouroalkyl Substances. B.L. Porter, M.G. Quinlan, D. Crispo, M.E. Fuller, P.K. Van Groos, and P. Forbes. Benjamin Porter (CB&I Federal Services/USA)

* Treatment of PFAS-Impacted Water: Results from Laboratory and Field Trials. D. Toase and C. Grimison. Danielle Toase (Ventia/Australia)

* Water Treatment System Modification for PFCs at Mather AFB. D.A. Cacciatore, M. Thomas, D. Hogshead, D. Self, and M. Enloe. David Cacciatore (APTIM/USA)

B1. Thermal Remediation Design & Best PracticesPlatforms Monday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Jim Cummings (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and Jeff DeLaet (T&M Associates, Inc.)

* Addressing Specific Thermal Aspects and Risks in Tendering In Situ Thermal Remediations. B. Scheffer, E. Marnette, T. Ruffenach, J. Guerin, and D. Hiez. Bert Scheffer (Tauw bv/Netherlands)

Bench- and Pilot-Scale Studies: Worthwhile Tools in Optimizing Thermal Remediation Approaches. A. Fortune, G. Heron, S.G. Nielsen, D. Phelan, R. Wenzel, R.J. Stuetzle, and J. Bunton. Alyson Fortune (TerraTherm/USA)

* Challenges of Interpreting Micro-Scale Variations in Groundwater Conditions during and following Thermal Treatment at a Mixed LNAPL Site. C. Rockwell and P. Nangeroni. Cathy Rockwell (Woodard & Curran/USA)

Complex Sites and Recalcitrant Compounds: Combining ISTR Technology. R.M. D’Anjou, M.E. Dodson, S. Griepke, and G. Heron. Robert D’Anjou (Cascade Environmental/USA)

* A Contaminant Mass Recovery Model for Electrical Resistance Heating Sites: Comparison with Actual Site Data. D.A. Rountree. David Rountree (McMillan-McGee Corporation/Canada)

* Current Models of Vapor Production and Mass Recovery at Thermal Remediation Sites and Their Implications for Appropriate Heating Strategies. J. LaChance, P. Hegele, and J. Munholland. John LaChance (Mc2 USA Inc./USA)

* = poster presentations

28

Data for the Design and Costing of an Electrothermal In Situ and Surface Thermal Treatment System. B.C.W. McGee, D.B. Winder, and E. Tung. Bruce McGee (McMillan-McGee Corporation/Canada)

* Defining the Target Treatment Area for Thermal Remediation. E.L. Davis. Eva Davis (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/USA)

* Effects of Thermal Conduction and Convection on In Situ Temperature Monitoring: A Simulation Study. C.F. Campbell. Clayton Campbell (McMillan-McGee Corporation/Canada)

* Electrical Resistance Heating Remediation in Interstate Median. G.W. Adams and R. Poulin. Gray Waxhaw Adams (Michael Pisani & Associates, Inc./USA)

ERH Remediation of University Campus Shale Bedrock Site. S. Gupta, D. Conley, J. Fager, C. Blundy, and E. Crownover. Sunila Gupta (Haley & Aldrich, Inc./USA)

* Fiber Optic Sensors for Distributed Monitoring of Soil and Groundwater during In Situ Thermal Remediation. H. Alemohammad, A. Azhari, and R. Liang. Hamid Alemohammad (AOMS Technologies Inc./Canada)

* Finite Element Modeling of Heterogeneous Soils with Non-Linear Properties for the Design of an Electrothermal In Situ Thermal Remediation Project. B.C.W. McGee, P.R. Hegele, and M.E.J. McGee. Bruce McGee (McMillan-McGee Corporation/Canada)

* Fundamentals of Steam-Enhanced Remediation and Field Applications. L. Stewart. Lloyd Stewart (Praxis Environmental Technologies, Inc./USA)

If You Have all the Thermal Tools, How Do You Pick the Best One for a Site? G. Heron, S. Nielsen, M. Dodson, and R. D’Anjou. Gorm Heron (TerraTherm, Inc./USA)

* In Situ Conductive Heating of a Chlorinated Hydrocarbon-Impacted Dutch Site: Lessons Learned. E.C.L. Marnette, A.M. Scheffer, S.A.B. Weelink, and N. Ploug. Emile Marnette (Tauw bv/Netherlands)

In Situ Hydrolysis and Thermal Treatment of 1,1,1-TCA during Electrical Resistance Heating. A. Taddeo, S. Wright, L. Mitchell, and P. Dombrowski. Art Taddeo (AECOM/USA)

In Situ Thermal Remediation in Europe: Advances and Lessons Learned at Multiple Sites (2005 to Present). J. Baldock, J. Dablow, and K. Johnson. James Baldock (ERM/United Kingdom)

In Situ Thermal Remediation of a DNAPL Source Zone Program: Challenges and Post-Treatment Findings. J.H. Levesque, C.L. McIlvaine, N. DiMarcello, and W.A. Norris. Jeffrey Levesque (OBG/USA)

* Inductive Thermal: Dynamic Stripping Process. E.W. Reid, S. Delos Reyes, D. Nyarko, and B.C.W. McGee. Edwin Walter Reid (McMillan-McGee Corp./Canada)

* Installing and Operating a Thermal Remediation System at an Active Industrial Site in Brazil. T. Keijzer, S. Rameh, S. Moreno, T. Roza, P. Jacobs, and J. Seeman. Teresa Roza (Grupo EPA/Brazil)

* Modelling the Recovery of Volatile Organic Compounds during In Situ Thermal Remediation. Q. Xie, K.G. Mumford, and B.H. Kueper. Qianli Xie (Queen’s University/Canada)

* On-Site Evaporative Desorption Technology Soil Treatment: A “Very” Low Temperature Ex Situ Thermal Remediation Alternative. B. Desmarais and J. Muzzio. Joe Muzzio (Reterro/USA)

* Post In Situ Thermal Remediation Response at a Canadian Rail Yard. J. Coughlin, P. Kornelsen, and L. Thomas. Jeremy Coughlin (Canadian Pacific/USA)

* Site Characterization and Visualization: Reducing Costs by Designing More Efficient ISTR Systems. R.M. D’Anjou, K. Stonestreet, and M.E. Dodson. Robert D’Anjou (Cascade Environmental/USA)

* Successful Treatment of Dioxin Using Thermal Conduction Heating: Results and Lessons Learned from a First of Its Kind Project. J. Galligan, G. Heron, R. Michalewich, A. Fortune, T. Burdett, S. Walker, and G. Anderson. Jim Galligan (TerraTherm, Inc./USA)

* Sustainable Combination Heating: An Innovative Approach for In Situ Thermal Remediation in Challenging Lithology. J. Dablow, J. Baldock, and K. Schnell. Jay Dablow (ERM/USA)

* Sustainable Low Temperature Thermal Remediation of Pesticides. J. Baldock, J. Dinham, K. Johnson, and J. Dablow. James Baldock (ERM/United Kingdom)

* Targeted Small Source Zone In Situ Thermal Treatment: Lessons Learned at Two Chlorinated VOC Applications. D. Croteau, G. Geckeler, and C. Voci. Grant Geckeler (GEO/USA)

* Thermal Contouring Methods for In Situ Thermal Remediation Projects. P.R. Hegele, R.L. Dueck, B.C.W. McGee, and J.C. LaChance. Paul Hegele (McMillan-McGee Corporation/Canada)

* = poster presentations

29

* Thermal Projects’ Need for Proper Site Characterization. N. Dumaresq. Nicholas Dumaresq (McMillan-McGee Corp./Canada)

* Thermal Treatment: How Much Energy Does It Take? S.G. Nielsen, G. Heron, R.M. D’Anjou, M. Dodson, J. LaChance, B. McGee, and N. Ploug. Steffen Griepke Nielsen (TerraTherm, Inc./USA)

* Thin Treatment Depths: A Thorn in Thermal’s Side. G. Sandberg, R.M. D’Anjou, and M.E. Dodson. Greg Sandberg (Global Remediation Solutions, LLC/USA)

Unique Challenges on an ERH Project: AMCO Superfund Site, California. A. Bowerman, M. Lawson, K. Manheimer, and P. Hegele. Alex Bowerman (Oneida Total Integrated Enterprises/USA)

* Using High-Resolution Site Characterization to Reduce Cost and Improve Outcomes on Thermal Remediation Projects. J. Galligan, G. Heron, A. Bonarrigo, S. Pitkin, and M. Jordan. Jim Galligan (TerraTherm, Inc./USA)

* Using Steam to Solve Groundwater Cooling Problems at TCH Sites. S.G. Nielsen, G. Heron, and N. Ploug. Steffen Griepke Nielsen (TerraTherm, Inc./USA)

B2. Biological RemediesPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Sandra Dworatzek (SiREM) and Heather Knotek-Smith (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)

* Aerobic Biodegradation of Chlorobenzene, Dichlorobenzene, and Benzene in Shallow Saturated Soils. A. Oka, A. Ciblak, H. Nichols, S. Abrams, and E. Seelman. Amita Oka (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

Bench and Pilot Test to Evaluate the Efficiency of ERD Technology for Chlorinated Solvents Remediation in Tropical Soils. F.C. Oliveira, F.C. Vieira, K.F.B. Silva, F. Gutierres, R.B. Santini, and P.L. Lima. Fernanda Campos de Oliveira (University of Sao Paulo/Brazil)

Bioaugmentation for Remediation of Aerobic Vinyl Chloride Plumes. J. Roberts, J. Webb, P. Dennis, S. Dworatzek, P. Dollar, T. Mattes, and N. Durant. Jeff Roberts (SiREM/Canada)

* Biodegradation and Bioremediation of Chlorpyrifosby Using Indigenous Bacterial Cultures. F. Jabeen, M. Bashir, S. Nadeem, and M. Maria. Farkhanda Jabeen (Punjab University/Pakistan)

* Biodegradation of a Chlorinated Solvent Plume Enhanced by Reducing Chemical Conditions beneath a Former Landfill. G. Kenoyer, A. Christensen, C. Chang, and N. Pratheepmanowong. Galen Kenoyer (Burns & McDonnell/USA)

* Biodegradation Potential of Groundwater Contaminants by Acidophilic Methanotrophs. Y. Shao, C. Chen, and K. Chu. Yiru Shao (Texas A&M University/USA)

* Complete Degradation of Chlorinated Ethanes in Sequential Bioreactors Operated under Varying Redox Conditions. L.M. Pipkin, V.K. Elango, and J.H. Pardue. Leslie Pipkin (Louisiana State University/USA)

Converting a Stormwater Pond into a Multi-Stage Treatment Reactor for Arsenic, Ammonia, and Benzene at the Industri-Plex Superfund Site. B. Thompson, T. Majer, M. Kelley, C. Elder, C. Elmendorf, and J. Gabriel. Bruce Thompson (de maximis, inc./USA)

* Dechlorination of Lightly Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins in Enriched Sediments from the Passaic River Bay in Newark, New Jersey. R.K. Dean, H. Almnehlawi, L. Rodenburg, and D.E. Fennell. Cassidy Schneider (Rutgers University/USA)

* Demonstrating Successful Performance of ERD Treatment at Multiple Sites. G. Colgan, S. Smith, J. Wilde, K. Bradley, A. Castor, J. Cox, T. Isakson, M. Reynolds, and A. Dziechciarz. Gary Colgan (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Effects of Common Methods Used to Generate Anaerobic Water on Bioaugmentation Cultures Containing Dehalococcoides sp. N. Hey, S. Vainberg, and D. Leigh. Neil Hey (Cascade/USA)

* Effects of Ethanol and BTEX on Local Microbial Populations following a Major Release. A. Madsen, R. Wilson, and J. Grosskleg. Aaron Madsen (Wood/Canada)

* Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation Pilot Study for Treatment of 1,1,1-TCA. M. Howard, L. Mitchell, A. Taddeo, and P. Dombrowski. Mark Howard (AECOM/USA)

Flying below the Radar: What Are Those Other Microbes Doing? S. Dworatzek, J. Roberts, P. Dennis, and P. Dollar. Sandra Dworatzek (SiREM/Canada)

* How Effective are Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation for Chlorinated Ethenes in the Source Zone? L. LaPat-Polasko, B. Kutz, and T. McMahan. Laurie LaPat-Polasko (Matrix New World Engineering/USA)

* Identification of the Iodate Terminal Reductase in Metal-Reducing Bacteria. H.D. Shin, A. Mok, Y. Toporek, B. Lee, M.H. Lee, and T. DiChristina. Hyun-Dong Shin (Georgia Institute of Technology/USA)

* = poster presentations

30

* In Situ Enhanced Bioremediation of TCE-Impacted Groundwater in Aerobic Aquifer. D.N. Bekele, S. Chadalavada, M. Mallavarapu, and R. Naidu. Dawit Nega Bekele (University of Newcastle/Australia)

* Kinetic Analysis Implicates Nitrous Oxide as a Potent Inhibitor of the Bacterial Reductive Dehalogenation Process. Y. Yin, J. Yan, G. Chen, and F.E. Loeffler. Yongchao Yin (University of Tennessee at Knoxville/USA)

Linking Acetylenotrophs to Microbial Remediation of Chlorinated Solvents. D.M. Akob, Y. Shrestha, S.S. Baesman, and R.S. Oremland. Denise Akob (US Geological Survey/USA)

* The Oleophilic Biobarrier: Field Demonstration Results and Lessons Learned about a Novel, Sustainable Sheen Remedy. M. Chalfant, W. Thomas, S. Dunn, R. Ahlers, and T. Sale. Marc Chalfant (Arcadis/USA)

* Organochloride Soil Remediation by Bioestimulation via Intercalation of Aerobic and Anaerobic Environments. J.C. Moretti, B.J. Moretti, M. Moretti, and R. Panzetti. Rafael Panzetti (Moriah Ambiental Ltda/Brazil)

Performance and Refresh of a Full-Scale Biowall System Designed to Treat Chlorinated Solvents in Groundwater. D.R. Griffiths, B. Badik, T. Belanger, and R. Battaglia. Daniel Griffiths (Parsons/USA)

* Phased Lab-to-Field Bioremediation Amendment Screening for Cleanup of Explosives-Contaminated Groundwater. M.M. Michalsen, F.H. Crocker, A.S. King, J.D. Istok, and M. Gander. Mandy Michalsen (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/USA)

* Remediation of Ammoniacal Nitrogen Using Bioaugmentation. B.M. Soares, E. Martins, L.B. de Sousa, and E. Leite. Barbara Muniz Soares (SuperBAC Biotechnology Solutions/Brazil)

* Remediation of Deep Trichloroethene Plume Using Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation Technology. S. Ridenour, M. Cassidy, D. Nunez, and C. Sandefur. Steven Ridenour (Alta Environmental/USA)

* Successful In Situ Pilot-Scale Test Design and Implementation to Treat Groundwater Impacted with PCE and TCE through Organic Carbon and Soluble Iron Injections. J. Claffey, R. Ruhmke, J. Nguyen, K. White, and K. Ramanand. Jim Claffey (Brown and Caldwell/USA)

Surprises and Mysteries from the Installation and Performance of 2000-feet of Biobarriers in Brackish Water. V. Hosangadi, R. Robitaille, P.L. Chang, and M. Pound. Vitthal Hosangadi (NOREAS, Inc./USA)

Testing Reductive Dechlorination Bioaugmentation Cultures in a Low pH Groundwater Setting. J. Peeples, L. Page, R. Welch, T. Carnes, L. Lehmicke, D.L. Freedman, and H. Wang. James A. Peeples (T&M Associates, Inc./USA)

* Use of Direct-Push Injections and a Biobarrier for Remediating Chlorinated Solvents during Residential Redevelopment. C. Elder, M. deFlaun, and J. Hochreiter. Carl R. Elder (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

B3. Monitored Natural AttenuationPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: James Tarr (U.S. Navy) and John Wilson (Scissortail Environmental Solutions, LLC)

* Chemistry Rules: Developing MNA and Remedial Strategies for Norborene Flame Retardants and Insecticides. L. MacKinnon, A. Przepiora, E. Cox, J. Wragg, S. Needham, A. Pham, and N. Zrinyi. Leah MacKinnon (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./Canada)

* Evaluating Monitored Natural Attenuation Using Plume Stability Modeling. G.M. Wilming and S.G. Lehrke. Gina Marie Wilming (Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC/USA)

Groundwater Recovery to Natural Biodegradation: Demonstrating a Better Remedial Approach to Closure. D.R. Gray. Doug Gray (AECOM/USA)

* Implementing Monitored Natural Attenuation with Multiple Contaminants, Modulating Groundwater Flow, and Multiple Attenuation Mechanisms. P.W. McLoughlin, J. Glover, J. Wilson, and J. Rosso. Patrick McLoughlin (Pace Analytical Energy Services/USA)

Incorporating Background Attenuation Rates into an Active Remedy Design. F. Payne, R. Orens, and B. Preusser. Fred Payne (Arcadis/USA)

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

* Modeling Microbial Oxidation of Vinyl Chloride under Simulated Field Conditions. P.M. Richards and T.E. Mattes. Patrick M. Richards (University of Iowa/USA)

Transitioning to Monitored Natural Attenuation at Active Remediation Sites: A Moving Target. Z.S. Wahl, C.H. Bell, and G. Gay. Zachary Wahl (Arcadis U.S. Inc./USA)

* = poster presentations

31

Using Mass Discharge Techniques to Demonstrate Natural Attenuation. G. Smith, Y. Kho, D. Hoffman, N. Ryan, T. Macbeth, J. Dougherty, R. Wymore, and C. Howell. Graham Smith (WSP/Australia)

B4. Abiotic and In Situ Biogeochemical ProcessesPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Kyle Kirchner (U.S. Navy) and Kristen Thoreson (Regenesis)

* Abiotic and Biotic Degradation of TCE by Aquifer Materials from the California Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman (“MEW”) Site. M.M. Scherer, D.E. Latta, T. Robinson, T. Mattes, P. Richards, E. Suchomel, R. Deeb, and L. Kane. Michelle Scherer (University of Iowa/USA)

* Abiotic Dechlorination of Chlorinated Ethene by Naturally-Occurring Ferrous Minerals under Aerobic and Anaerobic Conditions. C.E. Schaefer, P. Ho, E. Berns, C. Gurr, and C. Werth. Charles Schaefer (CDM Smith/USA)

* Abiotic Degradation of TCE in Groundwater: A Case Study. R. Stanforth, K. Quinn, and K. Piontek. Robert Stanforth (TRC Companies, Inc./USA)

Addition of Dual-Valent Iron to Electron Donor Mixtures for Remediation of Chlorinated Ethenes: A Study of over 100 Wells. D. Davis and O. Miller. Doug Davis (Regenesis/USA)

Assessment of Biogeochemical Processes to Manage Back Diffusion at a Fractured Sandstone Site. M. Burns, A. Bakenne, M. Brown, T. Huff, J. Baker, and D. Cummings. Matthew Burns (WSP/USA)

* Biogeochemical Remediation at a Highly Fractured Bedrock Aquifer. L. Zeng, A. Oka, K. Kelly, B. Bond, S. Abrams, and S. Ueland. Lingke Zeng (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services/USA)

* Biologically-Mediated Abiotic Degradation (BMAD) of Bisphenol A by the Manganese(II) Oxidizer Roseobacter sp. Strain AzwK-3b. J. Im, S.-W. Lee, and F.E. Loeffler. Jeongade Im (Kansas State University/USA)

* Dechlorination by Sulfidated Iron and Iron Oxides. Y. Lan, P.G. Tratnyek, R.L. Johnson, D. Fan, A. Nunez Garcia, D.M. O’Carroll, J. Filip, and A. Agrawal. Ying Lan (Oregon Health & Science University/USA)

* Diagnosing Reduction Capacity at ISCR Sites and Pre-Screening of Reductant Demand. C.M. Kocur, P.G. Tratnyek, and R. Johnson. Chris M. Kocur (Oregon Health & Science University/USA)

* In Situ Biogeochemical Transformation as a Polishing Step after ISCO: A Field Test. J. Nemecek, P. Kozubek, L. Lacinova, M. Nechanicka, J. Zeman, and M. Cernik. Jan Nemecek (Technical University of Liberec/Czech Republic)

* In Situ Delivery of ISCR Reagents: Relationships between Amendment Properties, Injection Methodology, and Distribution. J. Harvey and J. Freim. James Harvey (OnMaterials/USA)

* Investigation of Biogeochemical Degradation Pathway of Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons. C. Walecka-Hutchison, M. Zenker, R. Royer, S. Benedicto, and M. Brito. Claudia Walecka Hutchison (Dow Chemical Company/USA)

* Is a Mineral Surface Critical to Rapid and Successful Anaerobic Benzene Biodegradation? K.M. Hyde, D. Peak, S.D. Siciliano, and K. Bradshaw. Kathlyne Hyde (University of Saskatchewan/Canada)

* Is it Possible to Use Green Rusts to Reduce Chlorinated Ethylenes? J. Ai, W. Yin, and H.C.B. Hansen. Jing Ai (University of Copenhagen/Denmark)

* Lessons Learned from the Design, Operation, and Performance of 19 Subgrade Biogeochemical Reactors. J. Gamlin, D. Downey, and P. Favara. Jeff Gamlin (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Mass Magnetic Susceptibility Measurement for Estimating Intrinsic Abiotic Degradation Rates: Recommendations to Improve Interpretation Reliability. J. Studer, N. Glenn, and B. Ekstrom. James Studer (InfraSUR, LLC/USA)

* Measuring the Magnetic Susceptibility of Aquifer Sediment to Evaluate the Potential for Abiotic Transformation of Trichloroethene. R. Edwards and J. Wilson. Rick Edwards (CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc./USA)

* Multiple Methods for Discerning Abiotic and Biotic Processes Affecting Trichloroethene Plume Behavior in Fractured Sedimentary Rock. A.A. Pierce, B.L. Parker, S.W. Chapman, J.C. Hurley, J.A. Cherry, L. Zimmerman, and R. Aravena. Amanda Pierce (University of Guelph/Canada)

Practical Applications of Chemical Reactivity Probes (CRPs) to Estimate Abiotic Reduction Rates. C.M. Kocur, P.G. Tratnyek, and R. Johnson. Chris M. Kocur (Oregon Health & Science University/USA)

Prospects that Abiotic Degradation of TCE by Naturally Occurring Magnetite Can Be Important for Monitored Natural Attenuation. J.T. Wilson, B. Wilson, D. Taggart, D. Freedman, D. Cutt, and L. Thantu. John Wilson (Scissortail Environmental Solutions, LLC/USA)

* = poster presentations

32

* Side-by-Side Evaluation of Biogeochemical, ISCR, and ERD Reagents for Treatment of CVOCs. J. Molin, D. Leigh, B. Smith, and A. Seech. Josephine Molin (PeroxyChem, LLC/USA)

* Specially Configured Subgrade Biogeochemical Reactor to Treat Chlorinated Solvents in Low-Permeability Vadose Zone and Underlying Groundwater. J. Cox, S. Smith, D. Downey, and A. Dziechciarz. Jeremy Cox (CH2M/USA)

State of Practice of Abiotic and In Situ Biogeochemical Transformation Processes. R. Darlington. Ramona Darlington (Battelle/USA)

* Subgrade Biogeochemical Reactors for Treatment of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contamination. J. Gamlin, D. Downey, P. Favara, L. Duke, and G. Anderson. Jeff Gamlin (CH2M HILL/USA)

Sulfidation of ZVI for Degradation of Chlorinated Ethenes: A New Approach to In Situ Biogeochemical Transformation. S. Islam, Y.L. Han, A. Murray, K. Millerick, and W.L. Yan. Weile Yan (Texas Tech University/USA)

* Sustained Remediation of Chlorinated Solvents Using In Situ Formation and Regeneration of Ferrous Sulfide. R. Stanforth, J. Barros, E. Schwartz, L. Hovey, D. Lennon, and R. Surrency. Robert Stanforth (TRC Companies, Inc./USA)

B5. Zero Valent Iron ApplicationsPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Gary Birk (Tersus Environmental, LLC) and Dean Williamson (CH2M HILL)

* Abiotic Reduction of Chloropicrin and Carbon Tetrachloride in Site Soil and Groundwater. C.G. Schreier and G. Tellegen. Cindy Schreier (PRIMA Environmental, Inc./USA)

* Advancements to the EZVI Technology: Optimization of Biotic and Abiotic Processes and Improved Implementability for In Situ DNAPL Destruction. G. Booth, J. Mueller, C. Yestrebsky, N. Lapeyrouse, C. Clausen, and M. Scalzi. J. Greg Booth (Provectus Environmental Products, Inc./USA)

Controlled Sulfidation to Optimize the Remediation Performance of Zero-Valent Iron and Related Materials. D. Fan, Y. Lan, P.G. Tratnyek, R.L. Johnson, A. Nunez Garcia, D.M. O’Carroll, J. Filip, and A. Agrawal. Dimin Fan (U.S. EPA/USA)

Denmark’s First Full-Scale Microscale Zero Valent Iron PRB Emplaced by Direct Push Injection. T.H. Jorgensen, L. Nissen, A. Przepiora, N.D. Durant, and O. Mikkelsen. Torben Hojbjerg Jorgensen (COWI A/S/Denmark)

* Design, Installation and Performance Monitoring of Three ZVI PRBs. T. Kinney, M. Coram, and S. Dore. Thomas Kinney (GHD/USA)

* Effect of Dissolved Organic Carbon on Performance of ZVI-Based Remediation. J. Roberts, D. Schnell, and A. Przepiora. Jeff Roberts (SiREM/Canada)

* eZVI: The Benefits of Abiotic and Anaerobic Remediation. P. Randall and S. Chen. Pat Randall (Hepure/USA)

* Full-Scale Application of Colloidal ZVI and EVO via Liquid-Phase Injection for Treatment of Lesser Chlorinated Ethenes to Accelerate Site Closure. D. Williamson, B. Sharma, and W. Elliott. Dean Williamson (CH2M HILL/USA)

Groundwater Restoration and Long-Term Stewardship at a Former Smelter. G. Leone, S. Brown, M.B. Hay, J. Horst, and R. Puga. Gaston Leone (ARCADIS/USA)

* Influence of Metal Impurities in ZVI Matrix on Reactions with Chlorinated Ethenes. S. Islam, L. Somasundaram, W.L. Yan, and Y.L. Han. Weile Yan (Texas Tech University/USA)

* nZVI Direct-Push Application as an In Situ Treatment of CHC: Results of Long-Term Monitoring Using Advanced Technology for Zonal Groundwater Sampling. V. Stejskal, P. Kvapil, J. Slunsky, and J. Braun. Vojtech Stejskal (Technical University of Liberec/Czech Republic)

* Optimization and Performance of ZVI Amendments for In Situ Chemical and Biological Reduction: Less is More. G.M. Birk and D.F. Alden. Gary Birk (Tersus Environmental, LLC/USA)

Optimizing ZVI Formulations for the Degradation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons: Effects of Composition and Particle Size. J. Freim and J. Harvey. John Freim (OnMaterials/USA)

* Pilot Testing of In Situ Chemical Reduction-Enhanced Bioremediation at a Former Manufacturing Plant in Germany. M. Zhang, P.L. Brookner, N.D. Durant, S. Stiasny, and T.R. Etter. Man Zhang (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Tetrachloroethylene Groundwater Remediation in a Dolomitic Limestone Aquifer Using Injectable Zero Valent Iron. V.L. Wilson and T.H. DeWitt. Timothy H. DeWitt (August Mack Environmental, Inc./USA)

* = poster presentations

33

B6. In Situ Chemical ReductionPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Charles Schaefer (CDM Smith) and Paul Tratnyek (Oregon Health & Science University)

Abiotic Degradation of Chlorinated Ethenes by Iron Minerals: Over Two Decades Now. M.M. Scherer, D.E. Latta, T. Robinson, A.L. Neumann, and J. Entwistle. Michelle Scherer (University of Iowa/USA)

* Comparison of Reductive Transformations of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons by Chemically-Reduced versus Bio-Reduced Hydrous Ferric Oxide. J. Das and A. Agrawal. Jaya Das (Wright State University/USA)

Evaluation of Iron and Sulfur Supplements to Promote Reactive Mineral Formation in In Situ Reactive Zones. J. Ford, J. McDonough, M. McCaughey, R. Oesterreich, and J. Martin Tilton. Jeff Ford (Arcadis/USA)

* Feasibility Assessment of Reducing Soil for Degrading Trichloroethylene. Y. Hou and C. Liang. Yuwen Hou (National Chung Hsing University/Taiwan)

* In Situ Sensors and Injection Measurements Evaluate Electron Donor Distribution in Low-Permeability Heterogeneous Aquifer Achieving Closure through ERD. K. Wilhelm, R. Moore, and O. Miller. Karin Wilhelm (Stantec/USA)

ISCR-Based Remediation of Herbicide/Pesticide-Impacted Soils in Canada, China, Colombia, Sweden, and the United States: 22 Years of Success and Surprises. A.G. Seech and J.T. Slater. Alan Seech (PeroxyChem, LLC/USA)

* Large-Scale Remediation of TCE Using Abiotic Degradation with ZVI and Enhanced Biological Degradation. M. Wichman, B. Wight, R. Mowan, E. Moskal, and R. Kelley. Ryan Mowan (AECOM/USA)

Limitations and Lessons Learned from Applying In Situ Chemical Reduction to Treat VOCs and Metals in a Geochemically Complex Aquifer. T.J. Patterson, R. Srirangam, and L.M. Brausch. Thomas J. Patterson (Roux Associates, Inc./USA)

* Mechanochemical Destruction of DDTs with Fe-Zn Bimetal in a High-Energy Planetary Ball Mill. H. Sui, Y.Z. Rong, J. Song, and D.G. Zhang. Jing Song (Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences/China)

* = poster presentations

Oxidation of Chemically-Reduced Aquifer Sediments as Characterized by Abiotic Reactivity and Induced Polarization. J.E. Szecsody, T.C. Johnson, P. Tratnyek, E. Placencia-Gomez, M. Bradley, M.J. Truex, C.T. Resch, and B.N. Gartman. James Szecsody (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory/USA)

* Performance of a Large-Scale Reductant Amended Backfill for Remediation of Hexavalent Chromium-Impacted Groundwater. L. Hellerich, S. Sharma, S. Ravi, S. Mikaelian, and M. Terril. Lucas Hellerich (AECOM/USA)

* Post-Remedy Performance Results Comparing Soil Blending versus Direct Injection ISCR Source Area Treatment for 1,1,2 TCA. T. Adams. Timothy Adams (Roux Associates, Inc./USA)

* Reductive Degradation of Lindane by Tea Extracts in Aqueous Phase. C.-W. Wang and C. Liang. Chi-Wei Wang (National Chung Hsing University/Taiwan)

* Remediation for CVOCs by In Situ Chemical Reduction (ISCR) in Groundwater (Brazil Site). S.S. Aluani, M.C.F. Spilborghs, F.B. Tomiatti, E. Pujol, and N.C. Nascimento. Sidney Aluani (SGW Services/Brazil)

Using Molecular Techniques to Characterize Sites Undergoing ISCR: A Five Site Comparison Study. D. Taggart, M. Burns, and S. Rosolina. Sam Rosolina (Microbial Insights, Inc./USA)

B7. Lessons Learned with In Situ TechnologiesPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Brad Elkins (EOS Remediation, LLC) and Mark Harkness (OBG)

* Advanced Design Study for the Evaluation of Dyed EVO Distribution via Recirculation in a Complex Hydrogeochemical Setting. A. Brown, B.J. Lazar, N.M. Rabah, R.S. Germain, and M. Lee. Anthony Brown (TRC Companies, Inc./USA)

* An Assessment of Implementation Strategies for EISB: Is There a Right Way? D. Alden, G. Birk, and J. Roberts. David Alden (Tersus Environmental, LLC/USA)

* Complex DNAPL Site 50-Year Plume Response to Successive Remedial Measures Employed with an Evolving Site Conceptual Model. D.T. Heidlauf and J. Stumpf. David Heidlauf (Ramboll Environ/USA)

34

* Evaluating Methods to Rejuvenate a Clogged Zerovalent Iron (ZVI) Permeable Reactive Barrier (PRB). R. Welch, J. Peeples, L. Page, T. Carnes, D.L. Freedman, H. Wang, M. Soni, and L. Lehmicke. Regan Welch (T&M Associates/USA)

Full-Scale ISCR and EISB to Treat Chlorinated Solvents in Unsaturated Soils at a Former Chlorinated Solvents Manufacturing Plant. J. Daniels, M. Motylewski, J. Street, and B. Smith. John Daniels (Groundwater & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

How Much Buffer Do You Need to Adjust Aquifer pH? B. Yuncu and R.C. Borden. Bilgen Yuncu (Solutions-IES, a Division of Draper Aden Associates/USA)

* Implementation Lessons Learned from a VOC-Contaminated Coastal Site in Monterey, California. A. Halmstad, A. Frankel, D. Moser, T. Wotan, C. Sandefur, and S. Nigro. Craig Sandefur (Regenesis/USA)

In Situ Chemical Oxidation: Lessons Learned at Multiple Sites. J. Baldock, K. Morris, T. Pac, J. Parikh, P. Santos, and J. Sathaye. Timothy Pac (ERM/USA)

Lessons Learned from Direct-Push Injection of In Situ Reagents. M. McCaughey, R. Oesterreich, P. Jin, M. Gentile, A. Pennington, S. Burnell, M. Chalfant, and J. McDonough. Matthew McCaughey (Arcadis/USA)

Lessons Learned over 20 Years of Designing and Implementing Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation Remedies. M. Harkness. Mark Harkness (OBG/USA)

* Long-Term Performance and Methanogenesis Associated with Four Remedial Amendments: Indiana Sites. B. Dayharsh, K. Finneran, and J. Mueller. Jim Mueller (Provectus Environmental Products, Inc./USA)

* Management of Dilute Trichloroethene Plume in Low pH Aerobic Aquifer through a Combined ERD and MNA Remedy. N. Shetty, A. Gonzalez, M. Zenker, and S. Ross. Nanjun Shetty (AECOM/USA)

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

* Over Fifteen Years of Emulsified Vegetable Oil Applications: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly! W.A. Newman and B.N. McShane. Bill Newman (RNAS Remediation Products/USA)

* Overcoming pH Effects on a “Stalled” In Situ Bioremediation System. C.B. Bartley and C.R. Clymer. Christopher Bartley (Terracon/USA)

* Pilot Study for In Situ Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents in Groundwater: Successes and Challenges. S. Baffert, L. Conlan, and L. LaPat-Polasko. Sherrick Baffert (Wood/USA)

* Successes and Lessons Learned from a Soil Mixing Application with Sodium Persulfate. M. Perlmutter and E. Filc. Mike Perlmutter (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Three Decades of Solvent Bioremediation: The Evolution from Innovation to Conventional Practice. M. Schnobrich, J.M. Tilton, E. Gates, and J. Horst. Matthew Schnobrich (ARCADIS/USA)

* Three Years of Reductive Dechlorination at a Chlorinated Solvent Site. J.M. Yeager, A.J. Blayney, J.B. Connolly, C.M. Ross, and D.G. Larson. Jessica Yeager (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

B8. Lessons Learned in DNAPL Source Zone RemediationPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Fred Payne (Arcadis) and Heather Campbell Veith Rectanus (Battelle)

* 3-D Numerical Modelling of an In Situ Field-Scale Pulsed Pumping Process of a Large DNAPL Pool in a Keyed Enclosure. Q. Giraud, J. Gonçalvès, and B. Paris. Quentin Giraud (Intera/France)

* Benefits and Limitations of Aggressive Source Removal and Treatment at a Chlorinated Solvent Site. C.W. MacPhee. Craig W. MacPhee (AECOM/USA)

* Case Study and Review of Technical Literature Regarding Cost-Effectiveness of Source Control Options. R.C. Bost, D. Whitley, and Z. Zho. Richard C. Bost (NRM Environmental Services/USA)

* Comprehensive and Innovative Guidance for DNAPL Site Characterization and Remediation: Capturing Lessons Learned through Collaboration. R.A. Wymore, M.B. Smith, and N. Akladiss. Ryan Wymore (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

* Forensic Evaluation of NAPL Architecture. G.R. Carey. Grant Carey (Porewater Solutions/Canada)

* Implementation of a Passive DNAPL Recovery Program at a U.S. EPA Region 5 CERCLA Site. M.L. Schmidt and T. Steib. Martin Schmidt (AECOM/USA)

* In Situ Treatment of a NAPL Source Zone Using Combined ISCO, Air Sparging, and SVE to Achieve Regulatory Closure. J.M. Jeray, C.M. Ross, J.B. Connolly, and C.S. Martin. Joseph Jeray (Geosyntec Consultants/USA)

* = poster presentations

35

Know Your Enemy: Implementation of Bioremediation within a Suspected DNAPL Source Zone following High-Resolution Site Characterization at Contractors Road Heavy Equipment Area, Kennedy Space Center, Florida. A. Chrest, R. Daprato, M. Burcham, and J. Johnson. Mike Burcham (Geosyntec Consultants/USA)

Lessons Learned during DNAPL Source Zone Remediation. E. Gustafson. Erik Gustafson (The Louis Berger Group, Inc./USA)

Polluted Soil Remediation of Heavy Chlorinated Solvents in Saturated Porous Media: Effects of Thermal and Chemical Enhancements. S. Colombano, H. Davarzani, I. Ignatiadis, J. Deparis, D. Guyonnet, E.D. van Hullebusch, and D. Huguenot. Stefan Colombano (BRGM/France)

* Pushing the Edge of Practicable: Engineered Methods for Non-Ideal Aquifer Conditions for Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation Remedy. D.W. Tomlinson. Derek Tomlinson (GEI Consultants, Inc./USA)

Rapid DNAPL Source Zone Characterization with Dye-Enhanced Laser-Induced Fluorescence (DyeLIF). R. Stuetzle, R. Wenzel, N.R. Welty, M. Klemmer, and R. St. Germain. Nicklaus Welty (Arcadis/USA)

State of the Practice: DNAPL Source Zone Treatment. C.J. Newell. Charles Newell (GSI Environmental, Inc./USA)

* Successful Closure of a DNAPL Site: Lessons Learned. C.A. Cox. Craig Cox (Cox-Colvin & Associates, Inc./USA)

* Targeted Characterization Expedites Integrated Design/Construction for DNAPL Response Actions. M.M. Wade and K.D. Dyson. Marilyn M. Wade (Brown and Caldwell/USA)

* ZVI and Clay Mixing to Treat DNAPL Source Zone after Previous Implementation of Several Innovative Technologies. J. Cox, S. Smith, K. Bradley, R. Gates, T. Isakson, and T. Simpkin. Jeremy Cox (CH2M/USA)

B9. In Situ Chemical OxidationPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Prasad Kakarla (In-Situ Oxidative Technologies [ISOTEC]) and Deepti Krishnan Nair (Battelle)

* Chemical Oxidation Treatment of Transformer Oils that Contain Antioxidant Di-tert-butyl-para-cresol (DBPC). C. Bucior, S. Dore, D. Pope, R. Thomas, A. Weston, and R. Filion. Sophia Dore (GHD/USA)

* Combined Remedy Using In Situ Chemical Oxidation at Former Wood Treating Site, United Kingdom. J. Baldock, J. Dinham, D. Gallagher, K. Johnson, G. Johnstone, and T. Pac. Timothy Pac (ERM/USA)

* Continuous Multistage Fenton’s Degradation of Organochlorides. J.C. Moretti, B.J. Moretti, M. Moretti, and R. Panzetti. Michele Moretti Panzetti (Moriah Ambiental Ltda/Brazil)

Dose-Response Curves Compare the Effectiveness of Combined Cement-Persulfate Treatment with Standalone ISS and ISCO in Ten Different Soils. D.P. Cassidy and V.J. Srivastava. Daniel Cassidy (Western Michigan University/USA)

* Effectiveness of In Situ Chemical Oxidation at an LNAPL Solvent Site in New Jersey. G.A. Angyal, J.M. Freeman, J.A. Surowiecki, K. Klink, and R. Connell. Joelle M. Freeman (OBG/USA)

* Enhanced In Situ Chemical Oxidation Pilot Test, Guarulhos, Brazil. B. Gil, W.J. Hague, K. Morris, R.D. Mutch, T. Pac, and M. Singer. Timothy Pac (ERM/USA)

Injection of Potassium Persulfate via Hydraulic Fracturing to Address a Recalcitrant Fuel-Related and Chlorinated VOC Plume. M. Perlmutter and A. Forsberg. Mike Perlmutter (CH2M HILL/USA)

Innovative Carbohydrate (CH) Activation of Persulfate: Comparative Evaluation of Multiple Food-Grade CH Activators. P. Kakarla, Y. Chin, and W. Caldicott. Prasad Kakarla (In-Situ Oxidative Technologies [ISOTEC]/USA)

* ISCO Eliminates NAPL and Site Disruptions to Expedite Site Closure. K.D. Dyson and B. Quann. Kevin Dyson (Brown and Caldwell/USA)

* Oxidation of Bisphenol A by Activated Persulfate Using Iron(II) Entrapped Chitosan/Alginate Substrate. Y.S. Chang, Y.G. Kang, and H.C. Vu. Yoon-Seok Chang (POSTECH/South Korea)

* Oxidation of PAHs and their Byproducts (Polar PACs) in the Saturated Zone of DNAPL-Contaminated Subsoils. C. Johansson, A. Joubert, P. Faure, C. Biache, P. Bataillard, S. Colombano, C. Lorgeoux, T. Pigot, and J. Frayret. Clotilde Johansson (SERPOL/France)

Passive Sustained-Release ISCO Technology Achieves Remedial Site Closure. P.J. Dugan and G. Walsom. Pamela Dugan (Carus Corporation/USA)

PCB Remediation Using an Innovative ISCO Approach: Bench and Pilot Study Results. D.R. Gray and F. Barajas. Doug Gray (AECOM/USA)

* = poster presentations

36

* Pilot Study for In Situ Chemical Oxidation Using Potassium Permanganate for Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Groundwater. A. Lizzi and P. Thimmappa. Anthony Lizzi (Ninyo & Moore/USA)

* Quantifying the Thermal Desorption Effect Resulting from the Exothermic Fenton’s Reaction. G. Cronk and G. Sounhein. Gary Cronk (JAG Consulting Group, Inc./USA)

* Reconsidering ISCO for Treating Low Contaminant Concentrations. P.M. Dombrowski, P. Kakarla, and T. Eilber. Paul Dombrowski (In-Situ Oxidative Technologies [ISOTEC]/USA)

Successful Treatment of 1,4-Dioxane with In Situ Ozone. F.J. Krembs, G.E. Mathes, J. Pruis, M.R. Olson, and K. Power. Friedrich Krembs (Trihydro Corporation/USA)

* Targeted Application of Conventional and Slow-Release ISCO to Eliminate Residual TCE in Groundwater at the Aquifer-Confining Unit Boundary. J.E. Landmeyer, P.T. Harte, R.W. Tollett, J. Schoolfield, and M.A. Singeltary. James Landmeyer (U.S. Geological Survey/USA)

C1. Electroenhanced TechnologiesPlatforms Monday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Gary Angyal (OBG) and Evan E. Cox (Geosyntec Consultants)

* Anaerobic Degradation of Sulfolane Using Passive Anode-Cathode Technology. A. Schryer, S.D. Siciliano, T. Carlson, T. Obal, and S.R. Burge. Aimee Danielle Schryer (University of Saskatchewan/Canada)

* Design and Assessment of Electrochemical Zones for Remediation of Chlorinated Solvents in Natural Groundwater Aquifer Settings. B.H. Hyldegaard, E.B. Weeth, R. Jakobsen, N.D. Overheu, D.B. Gent, and L.M. Ottosen. Bente Højlund Hyldegaard (COWI/Denmark)

* Effect of Electron Acceptors on the Stimulation of Anaerobic Benzene Degradation Using Passive Anode-Cathode Technology (PACT). S. Chomyshen, K. Hyde, S.D. Siciliano, S.R. Burge, and K. Bradshaw. Samantha Corinne Chomyshen (University of Saskatchewan/Canada)

Electrokinetically-Based Remediation of Chlorinated Ethenes in Low Permeable Soils. L.M. Ottosen, P.E. Jensen, G.M. Kirkelund, B.H. Hyldegaard, L. Nedergaard, N. Tuxen, and T.H. Larsen. Lisbeth M. Ottosen (Technical University of Denmark/Denmark)

* Electrokinetically-Emplaced Amendments for Enhanced Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents in Clay: A Pilot Field Test. A. Inglis, N.A. Head, A. Nunez Garcia, A. Chowdhury, J. Gerhard, J. Hayman, J. Eimers, D. Reynolds, D. Hogberg, M. Auger, L. Austrins, A. Sidebottom, E. Edwards, L. Lomheim, and D. O’Carroll. Ainsley Inglis (Western University/Canada)

Field Test of Electrokinetically-Delivered and Thermally-Activated Persulfate (EKTAP) for Remediation of Chlorinated Solvents in Clay. N.A. Head, J.I. Gerhard, A.I. Chowdhury, A.M. Inglis, A.N. Garcia, J. Hayman, J. Eimers, D. Reynolds, D. Hogberg, M. Auger, L. Austrins, A. Sidebottom, and D.M. O’Carroll. Nicholas Andrew Head (University of Western Ontario/Canada)

From Laboratory to Full-Scale Implementation: Electrokinetically-Enhanced Delivery of Amendments for In Situ Remediation. D.B. Gent, J. Wang, E. Cox, D. Reynolds, C. Riis, I. Damgaard, and H. Kern. David Gent (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/USA)

* The Influence of Electrokinetic Bioremediation on Subsurface Microbial Communities in Perchloroethylene-Contaminated Soil. M.L. Altizer, A.G. Delgado, R. Krajmalnik-Brown, C. Torres, J. Wang, and E. Cox. Megan Altizer (Arizona State University/USA)

Next Generation of Nanoremediation: nZVI Application Enhanced by DC Electric Field. V. Stejskal, P. Kvapil, J. Nosek, M. Cernik, and J. Hrabal. Vojtech Stejskal (Technical University of Liberec/Czech Republic)

* A Novel Graphene-Based Rotating Disc Electrode System for the Electro-Fenton Oxidation of Pharmaceutical Compounds Catalyzed by Ferrocene. D. Govindaraj and I.M. Nambi. Divyapriya Govindaraj (Indian Institute of Technology Madras/India)

* Remediation of a Vinyl Chloride Dissolved Phase Plume through the Combination of Elektrokinesis and In Situ Chemical Oxidation at the Santos Port Area, Brazil. C. Rodrigues, L. Silveira, G. Setti, T. Borba, Y. Lima, and A.P. Queiroz. Ana Paula Queiroz (Waterloo Brasil/Brazil)

* Utilizing an Electrocoagulation (EC) Treatment Train for PCB and PCE Removal, Two Case Studies: Dredge Return Water Treatment on a Superfund Site and a Construction Site Turned Remediation Project. L. Doty and A. Nam. Liisa Doty (Water Tectonics, Inc./USA)

* = poster presentations

37

C2. Heat-Enhanced RemediationPlatforms Monday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Emily Crownover (TRS Group, Inc.) and Tamzen Macbeth (CDM Smith, Inc.)

* Biodegradation of Chlorinated Aromatic Compounds in Soils Using a Large Volume Heated Pile. R. Sambrotto, A. Rance, and H. Sanchez. Raymond Sambrotto (Columbia University/USA)

Destruction and Transformation of Pyrene by Mineral Surfaces during Thermal Desorption. C. Oden, C.J. Werth, and L.E. Katz. Cameron Oden (University of Texas at Austin/USA)

Heat-Enhanced Hydrolysis and Flash Sparging. C. Thomas and B. Morris. Chris Thomas (TRS Group, Inc./USA)

* Innovative Steam Auger Mixing and ISS Combined Remedy Bench-Scale Simulations. T.A. Jordan. Tommy Jordan (KEMRON Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

Monitoring the Impacts and Effectiveness of Electrical Resistance Heating Combined with Enhanced Bioremediation. D. Taggart, K. Clark, B.R. Baldwin, R. D’Anjou, and M. Dodson. Dora Taggart (Microbial Insights, Inc./USA)

State of the Practice: Heat-Enhanced In Situ Remediation. T.W. Macbeth and E. Crownover. Tamzen Macbeth (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

* Thermally-Enhanced Bioremediation and Desorption of Chlorinated Ethenes Using Groundwater Circulation. Y. Yamazaki, Y. Furukawa, T. Nakashima, T. Shimizu, X. Tian, and T. Kobayashi. Yuji Yamazaki (TAKENAKA Corporation/Japan)

* Thermally-Enhanced Bioremediation of TCE-Contaminated Groundwater. P. Najmanova, J. Nemecek, V. Knytl, J. Steinova, and T. Pluhar. Petra Najmanova (DEKONTA, a.s./Czech Republic)

* Thermally-Enhanced Natural Attenuation of VOCs: Two Years after In Situ Thermal Remediation. R. Thompson, M. Gefell, G. Heron, and B. Thompson. Rowan Thompson (GEI Consultants, Inc./USA)

Use of Steam to Enhance VOC-TPH NAPL Mixture Dissolution at a Major Source Area through Volatilization, Recovery, and Biodegradation, Naval Air Station North Island. V. Hosangadi, M. Price, P.L. Chang, and M. Pound. Michael Pound (U.S. Navy/USA)

C3. Innovative and Optimized Delivery MethodsPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Bill Newman (RNAS Remediation Products) and Mike Perlmutter (CH2M HILL)

* Augered Soil Removal and In Situ Biological/Chemical Degradation of PCE. R. Girouard, J.T. Spadaro, and M. Peterson. Richard Girouard (Ahtna Environmental, Inc./USA)

* Comparison of Hydraulic and Pneumatic Injection Techniques for In Situ Chemical Reduction of TCE in Low Permeability Aquifers. N.E. Diem, V.S. Mankad, D.P. Leigh, and N. Hey. Nathan Diem (GHD Services Inc/USA)

Delivery of a Permeable Injection Network for Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination Treatment: Adapting to Site Challenges. D.L. Schnell, P.J. Palko, and S.G. Feldmann. Deborah Schnell (GeoSierra Environmetal, Inc./USA)

* Effectiveness of Air Sparging Using a “Booster” Approach. M. Fulkerson, N. Ume, M. Perlmutter, M. Louth, D. Cleland, and C. Delaney. Monica Fulkerson (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Enhancing ISCO Performance in Low Permeability Formations: What a Blast! B. Luhrs and J. Yerton. Robert Luhrs (Raytheon Co./USA)

Enhancing ISCO with In Situ Recirculation. T.R. Andrews, S. Borchert, and V. Cocianni. Trevre Roys Andrews (CH2M/USA)

* In Situ Remediation of TCE-Impacted Groundwater with Limited Water-Bearing and Low-Permeability Aquifer. D.N. Bekele, S. Chadalavada, M. Mallavarapu, and R. Naidu. Sreenivasulu Chadalavada (CRC CARE Pty Ltd/Australia)

In Situ Solidification/Stabilization of a Residual Acid Tar via Deep Soil Mixing with Large Diameter Augers. D. Collins, E. Rowney, R. Andrachek, and N. Johnson. David Collins (Stantec/USA)

Injectant Delivery through Combination of Infiltration Galleries and High Vacuum Extraction. J. Byrd, P. Patey, and J. Spain. Jennifer Byrd (ERM/USA)

* New Application of the Grout Bomber Technology to Remediate Low-Permeability Contaminated Media. S.D. Richardson, C.J. Newell, J.A. Long, M.L. Schofield, and L.M. Rocha. Stephen Richardson (GSI Environmental, Inc./USA)

* = poster presentations

38

A New Technology for In Situ Remediation of Contaminated Sites by Cryo-Enhanced Delivery of Reactants in Low Permeable Clayey Deposits. H.U. Sø, R. Jakobsen, C. Kjøller, K.E. Klint, T.H. Larsen, A. Tsitonaki, and N. Tuxen. Helle Ugilt Sø (GEUS/Denmark)

* Next Generation Injection Manifold for Controlled Delivery of Liquid Amendments for Enhanced Distribution and Contact. E. Cooper and D. Caputo. Eliot Cooper (Cascade/USA)

* Optimizing Injections in Nonoptimal Environments: The Marriage of HRSC with Advanced Injection Approaches to Treat TCE in Glacial Till. K. Grosinske, C. Scala, D. DeYoung, D.K. Nair, D. Leigh, and D. Wiley. Deepti Krishnan Nair (Battelle/USA)

* Permanganate Distribution and TCE Source Area Results Three Years after Full-Scale Injection of Solid Reagent by Controlled-Jet Injection. S. Golaski, G. Maalouf, D. Bryant, D. Knight, and B. Slack. Stan Golaski (Rogers & Callcott Environmental/USA)

Specifically Configured Groundwater Circulation (GCW) System for Accelerated Biodegradation of CAHs under Anaerobic Conditions. D. Hiller, M. Piepenbrink, K. Mueller, and E. Alesi. Dieter Hiller (ERM GmbH/Germany)

State of the Practice for Innovative and Optimized Delivery Methods for Liquid and Solid Amendments in a Variety of Lithologies. E. Cooper, N. Hey, S. Chen, and R. Kelley. Eliot Cooper (Cascade/USA)

Targeted Permeability Enhancement and ZVI Emplacement to Improve In Situ Bioremediation of a High-Concentration Source. N.T. Smith, D.D. Nguyen, N.L. Smith, K.J. Waage, M.R. Lamar, R.A. Wymore, K.S. Sorenson, S. Garcia, I. Bowen, G. Guest, and C. Kaiser. Nathan Smith (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

* Use of Two Injection Techniques to Apply Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination at a VOC Plume Site. M. Perlmutter and R. Goodson. Mike Perlmutter (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Utilization of Innovative Methods to Design and Install a ZVI-PRB Using Vertical Inclusion Propagation to Intercept a Chlorinated Plume. D.L. Schnell, P.J. Palko, and J. Santacroce. Deborah Schnell (GeoSierra Environmetal, Inc./USA)

C4. Horizontal WellsPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Craig Divine (Arcadis) and Monica Fulkerson (CH2M HILL)

* Adding Accurate Control to Horizontal Well Systems under Tanks, Roads, Utilities, and Adjacent Owner Properties. L.I. Robinson. Lance Robinson (EN Rx, Inc./USA)

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

Australia’s First Installation of Horizontal Wells for In Situ Chemical Oxidation (ISCO) and Biosparging: Lessons Learned. P. Balbachevsky, W. Caldicott, M. Mercuri, and M. Sequino. Pedro Balbachevsky (AECOM/Australia)

* Demonstration and Validation of the Horizontal Reactive Media Treatment (HRXTM) Well. B. Nzeribe, J. Furcick, M. Alexander, M.Crimi, C. Divine, and J. McDonough. Blossom Nzeribe (Clarkson University/USA)

Demonstration and Validation of the Horizontal Reactive Media Treatment Well (HRX Well®) for Passive In Situ Remediation. C. Divine, J. McDonough, J. Wright, J. Wang, M. Crimi, and J.F. Devlin. Craig Divine (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

Distribution of Permanganate via 100-Foot Deep Horizontal Well. M. Fulkerson, J. High, M. Perlmutter, M. Louth, D. Cleland, and C. Delaney. Monica Fulkerson (CH2M HILL/USA)

Effective Treatment of a CVOC Plume beneath an Active Manufacturing Facility Using Deep Horizontal Sparge Wells. M. Strong, T. Feng, A. Elliot, and B. Dehghi. Mark Strong (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Horizontal Biosparging: Case Study of Southern California Pilot Study. M. Lubrecht, E. Davis, and M. Strong. Michael Lubrecht (Directed Technologies Drilling, Inc./USA)

* Horizontal Wells Down Under: Horizontal Wells Were Tasked to Target Source Area Under Industrial Complex. M. Sequino, P. Balbachevsky, and M. Mercuri. Mike Sequino (Directional Technologies, Inc./USA)

* Soil Vapor Extraction Using a Horizontal Remediation Well to Remediate Biogenic Methane and VOCs at a Hydrocarbon Contamination Site. S.H. Bailey, M.E. Pate, and J.R. Moses. Sam Hendrik Bailey (Kleinfelder/USA)

* Using Discrete Horizontal Sampling Wells to Fill Data Gaps. L.I. Robinson. Lance Robinson (EN Rx, Inc./USA)

* = poster presentations

39

C5. Advances in AmendmentsPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Carlotta Cellucci (U.S. Navy) and Raymond Lees (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services)

* Accelerated Aerobic Dechlorination of Pesticides, PCBs and Other Persistent Organic Chemical Pollutants in Soil. C.W. Young, M. Johnson, and B. Cook. Christopher Young (Biotech Restorations/USA)

* Activated Carbon Applications to Address PCBs in Sediment: Examples and Results from Selected ESTCP Projects. J. Collins, J. Hull, and J. Jersak. John Collins (AquaBlok, Ltd./USA)

Development of Novel Nanomaterials for Water Remediation. Y.S. Chang, Y.G. Kang, C.S. Lee, D.S. Oh, H.W. Yoon, and Y.Y. Chang. Yoon-Seok Chang (POSTECH/South Korea)

* Evaluation of Locally-Available Substrates for Degradation of Complex Chlorinated Solvents in South America. C. Mowder, D. Berggren, E. Liu, M. Brito, and C. Walecka-Hutchison. Carol Mowder (CH2M/USA)

* Evaluation of Potassium Persulfate as a Permeable Reactive Barrier at Three Different Sites. B.A. Smith, L. Kammer, J. Soukup, C. Letts, P. Lyon, T. Pac, and V. Sadeghi. Brant Smith (PeroxyChem, LLC/USA)

Field-Scale Evaluation of Enhanced Attenuation Processes Using Humate as an Amendment. D.G. Jackson, B.B. Looney, J.A. Ross, J.E. Cardoso-Neto, T.F. Kmetz, G.T. Kinsman, and J. Furr. Dennis Jackson (Savannah River National Laboratory/USA)

Full-Scale ERD and Bioaugmentation in Deep Groundwater Using New Reducing Agent to Create Anaerobic Water. J. Su, E. James, J.F. Daugherty, and K.A. Gruebel. Karen A. Gruebel (Erler & Kalinowski, Inc./USA)

* Implementing an In Situ Reactive Zone to Mitigate Off-Site Migration: From Field Test to Full-Scale. M. Verbeeck, P. Valle, E. van de Ven, and B. Verhoeven. Mattias Verbeeck (ERM/Belgium)

New Antimethanogenic Reagents (AMRs). J. Mueller, G. Booth, J. Haselow, B. Rehm, A. Hassel, and K. Finneran. Jim Mueller (Provectus Environmental Products, Inc./USA)

State of the Practice—Advances in Amendments for Remediation: Where Are We Making Progress? D.T. Adamson. David Adamson (GSI Environmental, Inc./USA)

* Using Amendments to Control Geotechnical Characteristics following Soil Mixing with ISCO. B.A. Smith, I. Horner, and B. Desjardins. Brant Smith (PeroxyChem, LLC/USA)

C6. Injectable Activated Carbon AmendmentsPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Jim Fenstermacher (AECOM) and Anthony Nelson (U.S. Navy)

* Activated Carbon: A Love Affair Spanning 15 Years. S. Noland, B. Iden, G. Simpson, and T. York. Scott Noland (Remediation Products, Inc./USA)

* Challenges of a Large-Scale In Situ Application of Activated Carbon, Nutrients, and Bacteria at the DSH Food and Gas Site in Areas with Limited Access. J.V. Fontana, B. Davis, and M.K. Larsen. John Fontana (Vista GeoScience/USA)

Combining In Situ Sorption and Bioremediation for the Management of a Chlorinated Solvent Plume at Low Concentration. M. Petrangeli Papini, F. Arjmand, P. Ciampi, C. Esposito, J. Birnstingl, M. Carboni, P. Goria, S. Rossetti, B. Matturro, L. Cesta Incani, and M. Bacchi. Marco Petrangeli Papini (University of Rome “La Sapienza”/Italy)

* Controlling Back-Diffusive Mass Loading at Three Midwest Sites with Glaciogenic Interbedded Geology Utilizing a Colloidal Liquid Activated Carbon. K.M. Gaskill, D. Davis, and S. Barnes. Keith Gaskill (EnviroForensics/USA)

Enhanced Performance of Colloidal Zero Valent Iron through Co-Treatment with Colloidal Activated Carbon. K.D. Pappano and K.A. Thoreson. Katherine Pappano (Regenesis/USA)

In Situ Groundwater Remediation by Activated Carbon (AC)-Based Amendments at Several CERCLA and RCRA Sites. D. Fan. Dimin Fan (U.S. EPA/USA)

* In Situ Remediation of Former Industrial Area (Redeveloped to New Housing Buildings) with Innovative Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination Technology. G.G. Ceriani. Gabriele Giorgio Ceriani (Ejlskov A/S/Denmark)

* LNAPL Remediation Combining Mobile Dual-Phase Extraction with Concurrent Injection of a Carbon-Based Amendment. F.T. Barranco, J. Taylor, D. Hoyt, K. Bradley, and M. Roginske. Frank Barranco (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC/USA)

Opportunities and Limitations of DNAPL Treatment via Injectable ZVI/Carbon: Results of Bench- and Field-Scale Tests. J. Moreskog, M. Ohr, S. Lloyd, and S. Noland. Johanna Moreskog (AECOM/USA)

* = poster presentations

40

Performance of Injected Powdered and Liquid Activated Carbon at a Petroleum Hydrocarbon Site. R. McGregor. Rick McGregor (InSitu Remediation Services Ltd./Canada)

* Rapid Site Closure of a Large Gas Plant Using In Situ Bioremediation Technology in Low-Permeability Soil and Fractured Bedrock. T.A. Harp. Tom Harp (LT Environmental, Inc./USA)

* The Remediation of Recalcitrant Hydrocarbons in Soil and Groundwater Employing Bioavailable Absorbent Media (BAM) with and without Bacterial Nutrients. L. Kinsman and B. Tease. Larry Kinsman (ORIN Remediation Technologies/USA)

Remediation of Volatile Organics in Groundwater Using In Situ Carbon (ISC) Injection Technologies: A Comparative Analysis. J. Sheldon and G. Hinshalwood. Jack Sheldon (Antea Group/USA)

* Site Goals Achieved in Two Months at a Santa Barbara Manufacturing Facility Using a Dispersive Colloidal Activated Carbon. E. Haro and D. Nunez. Dan Nunez (Regenesis/USA)

C7. Surfactant-Enhanced RemediationPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Adria Bodour (U.S. Air Force Civil Engineer Center) and George Ivey (Ivey International, Inc.)

Combine Optimization of Surfactant Enhanced Recovery and ISCO Alkaline Activation to Treat a Brazilian Latosol Soil Contaminated with DRO Diesel. V.W. Cibele, D.M. Cristina, and R. Paulino. Cibele Vicino (Ambscience Engenharia Ltda/Brazil)

* Combined Surfactant and Oxidant Application for Simultaneous Contaminant Liberation and Destruction. D. Socci, J. Holcomb, and G. Dahal. Dan Socci (EthicalChem/USA)

Design and Implementation of Full-Scale In Situ Chemical Oxidation of PCE in Soil and Groundwater Using Surfactant-Facilitated Sodium Permanganate at an Urban Location. K. Ramanand, D.W. Podsen, E.W. Wilson, M. Ostrowski, K.D. Dyson, and M. Temple. Karnam Ramanand (Brown and Caldwell/USA)

* Enhanced NAPL Recovery through Combined Surfactant and Hydrogen Peroxide Flushing. D. Socci, J. Holcomb, and G. Dahal. Dan Socci (EthicalChem/USA)

Implementation of a Biosurfactant-Enhanced Treatment for Soils Impacted by PAH. F. Cazals, M. Morlay, A. Perrault, N. Galopin, S. Rossano, S. Colombano, I. Ignatiadis, D. Huguenot, and M.O. Simonnot. Mathieu Morlay (COLAS Environnement/France)

Lessons Learned from Surfactant-Enhanced Aquifer Remediation of Light and Dense NAPLs. D. Alden and G. Birk. David Alden (Tersus Environmental, LLC/USA)

Permanent Removal of Separate Phase Organics in Groundwater. G.A. Ivey and J.S. Poynor. George Ivey (Ivey International, Inc./Canada)

Surfactant-Enhanced Extraction to Expedite Remediation of a Carbon Tetrachloride Source Zone at an Active Grain Elevator Facility. E. Dulle. Eric Dulle (Burns & McDonnell/USA)

* Surfactant Use to Enhance Performance of Chemical Oxidation Remediation. D. Socci, J. Holcomb, and G. Dahal. Dan Socci (EthicalChem/USA)

C8. Phytoremediation/Mycoremediation and Plant UptakePlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Joel Burken (Missouri University of Science & Technology) and Tesema Chekol (Battelle)

Artificial Neural Network Development to Predict Plant Uptake and Translocation of Chlorinated Contaminants: Implications on Risk and Remediation. M. Bagheri and J.G. Burken. Majid Bagheri (Missouri University of Science and Technology/USA)

* Bioremediation Feasibility Study of Various PCB-Contaminated Matrices by White Rot Fungi. T. Cajthaml, K. Šrédlová, T. Stella, and O. Lhotský. Tomas Cajthaml (Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic/Czech Republic)

* A Case Study of Phytoforensics for a PCE-Contaminated Site in Taiwan. M.Y. Wu, B.V. Wang, S.K. Huang, B.T. Guan, J.E. Landmeyer, H.M. Yen, W. Chen, and I.H. Chen. Meng Yu Wu (SINOTECH Environmental Technology, Ltd./Taiwan)

Degradation of Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Mixtures (Aroclors) and Sediments Contaminated with PCBs with Encapsulated Oxidoreductase Enzymes. K.H. Kucharzyk, E. Strozier, C.S. Peven McCarthy, and A.D. Duong. Kate Kucharzyk (Battelle/USA)

* Design and Implementation of an Arsenic Phytoremediation Pilot Study at a Wood Treatment/Chromated Copper Arsenate Site. J.A. Moore, C. Krouse, D.K. Huff, S.R. AufdenKampe, and D.S. Pittenger. J. Alan Moore (Nutter & Associates, Inc./USA)

* = poster presentations

41

Dioxygenases Present in Phenanthrene and Fluoranthene Degradation by Bacterial and Fungal Co-Cultures. M. Bello-Akinosho, R. Adeleke, and M. Thantsha. Rasheed Adeleke (Agriculture Research Council/South Africa)

* Effective Management of a Recalcitrant Petroleum Hydrocarbon-Impacted Site by Phytoremediation. P. Campbell, J. Grosskleg, and K. Bradshaw. Patrick Campbell (Wood/Canada)

Enhanced Degradation of TCE on a Superfund Site Using Endophyte-Assisted Poplar Tree Phytoremediation. J.L. Freeman, S.L. Doty, C.M. Cohu, and M.J. Blaylock. John Freeman (Intrinsyx Technologies Corporation/USA)

* Evaluation of Ligninolytic Enzymatic Activity in an Acrylamide-Potassium Acrylate Copolymer for Degradation of Chlorinated Compounds. M.C. Vargas Romero, G.M.L. Ruiz-Aguilar, N. Lovanh, A. Saldaña-Robles, and R.A. Veloz-García. Monica Cristina Vargas Romero (Universidad de Guanajuato/Mexico)

* Execution of a Field-Scale Planted Greenhouse PFAS Uptake Study at RAAF Base Williamtown, New South Wales, Australia. B. Harding, R. Casson, V. Pearce, and M. McLaughlin. Barry Harding (AECOM/USA)

* Five Factors in Plant Health Care to Ensure Your Project is Reaching Optimal Performance. D.S. Courtright. Scott Courtright (TEA, Inc./USA)

* High-Resolution Site Characterization of a Chlorinated Solvent Groundwater Plume beneath a Phytoremediation Site. M. Meyer and C. Cellucci. Michael Meyer (Battelle/USA)

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

Mycoremediation: Evaluating Fungal Metagenomics and Biofilm Association in PAH-Contaminated Estuarine Sediments. S.J. Volkoff, L.M. Czaplicki, and C.K. Gunsch. Savannah J. Volkoff (Duke University/USA)

* Nonylphenol Translocation in Lettuce from Contaminated Soil Amended with Biochar. G. Beretta, A. Mastorgio, S. Saponaro, and E. Sezenna. Gabriele Beretta (Politecnico di Milano/Italy)

* A Passive Sampler for Contaminant Detection in Trees. J.E. Landmeyer and H.S. O’Neill. James Landmeyer (U.S. Geological Survey/USA)

* PHYTO-INTEGRATED™ Remediation System to Address Chlorobenzene-Contaminated Groundwater in a Complex Saprolitic Aquifer. E.G. Gatliff, E.B. Hollifield, M. Miller, D. Wanty, and P.R. Thomas. Edward Gatliff (Applied Natural Science, Inc./USA)

* Phytoremediation and Rhizodegradation Pilot Studies at a 73-Acre Former Wastewater Pond in Northern California. B. Gray, B. LePage, J. Warner, D. Lind, and K. Morris. Kevin Morris (ERM/USA)

* Phytoremediation of a Former Urban Sewage Lagoon. T. Carlson, R. Gestler, and A. Schoonmaker. Trevor Jason Carlson (Geosyntec Consultants/Canada)

C9. Combined Remedies and Treatment TrainsPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Dan Bryant (Woodard & Curran) and Daniel Oberle (TRS Group, Inc.)

* Achieving Regulatory Closure of a PCE Groundwater Plume Using a Hybrid Pump and Treat and ISCO Approach at a State Superfund Site in Quartzsite, Arizona. J.N. Clarke, M. Bunkers, and L. Robinson. James Nicholas Clarke (Wood/USA)

* Adaptive Dynamic Groundwater Recirculation: A Strategy for Expedited Plume Cleanup. A. Horneman, M. Klemmer, and W. Parry. Allan Horneman (Arcadis/USA)

* Application of MPE and ISCR in Remediation of a Chlorohydrocarbon-Contaminated Site. F. Zhang and L. Ma. Feng Zhang (Shanghai Greenment Environmental Technology Co., Ltd./China)

* Combined In Situ Chemical Reduction and In Situ Bioremediation Groundwater Treatment for a Chlorinated VOC Plume. K. Diller, D.R. Griffiths, C. Ross, M.H. Mehta, and D. Clark. Kristi Diller (Parsons/USA)

* Combined Remediation Approaches to Address Chlorinated Volatile Organic Impacts. R. Cadorette and R. Mayer. Raymond Cadorette (APTIM Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc./USA)

* Combined Remedies Address Chlorinated Solvent Impacts at an Industrial Site. M. Mazzarese. Mike Mazzarese (AST Environmental, Inc./USA)

Downgradient Thermal Front Migration and Enhancement of Plume Area In Situ Bioremediation after Thermal Source Area Remedy. J.R. House, R.D. Collins, D. Bryant, J. Sammon, and R. Simon. Jason R. House (Woodard & Curran/USA)

* = poster presentations

42

* Lessons Learned: The Importance of Proper Project Planning When Integrating In Situ Mechanical and Biological Hydrocarbon Remediation Technologies. E.M. Jennings and S. Willis. Eleanor Jennings (Parsons/USA)

Long-Term Anaerobic Bioremediation of Petroleum Contaminants by Iron- and Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria following Combined Cement-Persulfate Treatment. D.P. Cassidy and V.J. Srivastava. Daniel Cassidy (Western Michigan University/USA)

* One Site, Seven Remedial Solutions: A Combined Approach to Increase Remediation Effectiveness. F. Coelho. Flavio Coelho (ERM Brasil Ltda./Brazil)

* Optimization of a Source Area Remedy Using SVE and ERD. J. Cox, J. Wilde, M. Roginske, M. Reynolds, and G. Colgan. Jeremy Cox (CH2M/USA)

Overcoming Challenges and Closure-Strategy Development at a Long-Term, Large-Scale CVOC Bioremediation/Thermal Project. M.A. Panciera, D. Bytautas, T. Kalinowski, L.A. Hellerich, and R. Henderson. Matthew Panciera (AECOM/USA)

Protecting Community Water Supply through EPA Removal Actions Involving Source Soil and Bedrock Aquifer Remediation. D.A. Zimmermann and S. Fisher. David A. Zimmermann (Tetra Tech Inc./USA)

* Succession of Remediation Techniques for a Complex Site Impacted by Chlorinated Solvents. S.S. Aluani, M.C.F. Spilborghs, F.B. Tomiatti, E. Pujol, and N.C. Nascimento. Sidney Aluani (SGW Services/Brazil)

Thermal Soil Mixing and ZVI Injection Using Large Diameter Augers at a Former Dry Cleaner. M.C. Crews. Matthew Crews (Golder Associates Inc./USA)

* When In Situ Stabilization/Solidification (ISS) Alone Is Not Enough: Evaluation of a Combined Persulfate/ISS Remedy for MGP Remediation. N.D. Durant, C. Robb, M. Healey, J. Roberts, T.H. Jorgensen, and A. Toft. Neal Durant (Geosyntec Consultants/USA)

C10. Emerging Remediation TechnologiesPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Arul Ayyaswami (Tetra Tech, Inc.) and Mark Kluger (TRS Group)

* Adsorption of Antibiotics in Water onto Surface-Modified Biochar Adsorbents. Y. Choi, H. Jang, and E. Kan. Eunsung Kan (Texas A&M University/USA)

* = poster presentations

* Aromatic Dye Removal by a Combination of Anaerobic and Micro-Aerobic Degradation Processes. O.F. Menezes and S. Gavazza. Savia Gavazza (Federal University of Pernambuco/Brazil)

Biological Reduction of Multi-Contaminants that Are Electron Acceptors. M. Elkouz, S. Shrestha, J. Batista, and A. Ayyaswami. Jacimaria Batista (University of Nevada Las Vegas/USA)

* Combined In Situ Remedial Approach Using Activated Carbon and Bioremediation to Treat and Prevent Off-Site Migration of a Chlorinated Solvent Plume in Southern California. C.W. Lenker, L.M. Rebele, and A. Ayyaswami. Carl Lenker (Tetra Tech, Inc./USA)

* Enhanced Distribution of Modified Nano-Scale Magnesia for Injection-Based In Situ Groundwater Remediation. N.K. Koju, X. Song, N. Lin, and K. Xu. Xin Song (Chinese Academy of Sciences/China)

Field Demonstration of Foam Injection to Confine a Source Zone of Chlorinated Solvents. C. Portois, E. Essouayed, M.D. Annable, N. Guiserix, A. Joubert, and O. Atteia. Clément Portois (ENSEGID/France)

In Situ Remediation of Pesticides, Explosives, and Chemical Weapons Using Heat-Enhanced Hydrolysis. G. Beyke. Greg Beyke (TRS Group, Inc./USA)

* In Situ Stabilization of NAPL Contaminant Source Zones as a Remediation Technique to Reduce Mass Flux to Groundwater. D.J. Mateas, G.R. Tick, and K.C. Carroll. Douglas J. Mateas (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Introduction of Violacein-Producing Genes into Trichloroethene-Degrading Bacteria to Avoid Protozoan Predation. K. Nakamura and T. Kato. Kanji Nakamura (Tohoku Gakuin University/Japan)

Laboratory and Field Evaluation of Bioaugmented Granular Activated Carbon for Treatment of Chlorobenzenes and PCBs in Sediment. M.M. Lorah, E.H. Majcher, S. Chow, E.J. Bouwer, A.R. Wadhawan, and N.D. Durant. Michelle M. Lorah (U.S. Geological Survey/USA)

* Paste Sequestration of Halides from Coal-Fired Power Plant FGD Wastewater. K. Ambrose. Keith Ambrose (Duke Energy/USA)

* Sand Cap Stabilization, Sediment Resuspension Mitigation and GAC/PAC Amendment Transport Optimization Using Innovative Protein Polysaccharide Biopolymers (PPBs). A. Dahmani, F. Dahan, C. Ligeikis, F. Qweider, J. Mulqueen, R. Albino, R. Beach, and S. Damon. Amine Dahmani (SESI Consulting Engineers/USA)

43

* Slow Release Multi-Oxidant Cylinders for Remediation of a 1,1-DCE Plume. J. Byrd, E. Hollifield, and P. Dugan. Jennifer Byrd (ERM/USA)

* Sulfidation of nZVI Particles for Improved Performance in Groundwater Treatment Technologies: Laboratory versus Field Experiences. J. Filip, M. Brumovský, J. Oborná, R. Zboril, J. Nosek, J. Semerád, J. Slunský, and P. Lacina. Jan Filip (Palacký University/Czech Republic)

Taking Sulfidated nZVI to the Field: Key Considerations. A. Nunez Garcia, J. Herrera, D. Fan, C.M. Kocur, R.L. Johnson, P.G. Tratnyek, and D.M. O’Carroll. Denis O’Carroll (University of New South Wales/Australia)

Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents by Copper-Amended Nanoscale Zero-Valent Iron Stabilized with Carboxymethylcellulose. A. Franze and A. Agrawal. Andrew Franze (Key Environmental/USA)

* VEG Technology: A Patented Green and Sustainable Technology for On-site Thermal Remediation of Soils and Enhanced NAPL Recovery. M. Javaherian. Mehrdad Javaherian (Endpoint Consulting, Inc./USA)

D1. Estimating Cleanup Timeframes and Modeling to Support Site ClosurePlatforms Monday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: David Adamson (GSI Environmental, Inc.) and Michael Truex (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory)

* Analysis of Recontamination Potential: Future Surface Sediment Chemical Equilibrium Concentrations in Newtown Creek. R. Makhlouf, L. Bateman, K. Zeigler, and K. Russell. Ramzy Makhlouf (Anchor QEA LLC/USA)

* Application of Linear Regression Method to Track Remediation Progress and Predict Cleanup Time for a CVOC Groundwater Plume. A. Hodges and T.H. Feng. Alan Hodges (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Assessing MTBE Degradation in an Alluvial Aquifer. K. Sun, A. Brown, E. Keene, T. Andrews, and P. Salcido. Kerang Sun (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Attenuation of a Chlorinated Solvent Plume Expedited by Underground Construction. J.R. Kastrinos and O. Miles. John R. Kastrinos (Haley & Aldrich, Inc./USA)

Decision Support Tool for Vadose Zone Remediation of Volatile Contaminants. M. Truex, C. Johnson, T. Appleman, R. Hinchee, and D. Becker. Michael Truex (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory/USA)

A Practical Modeling Tool to Estimate Cleanup Timeframes in Highly Heterogeneous Aquifers with Matrix Diffusion and Degradation Reactions. D.K. Burnell, J. Xu, and L.S. Sims. Daniel Burnell (Tetra Tech, Inc./USA)

Predictive Modeling of Downgradient Concentrations and Overall Closure Timeframe Resulting from Bioremediation. F.J. Krembs, G.E. Mathes, M.R. Olson, and M.G. Sweetenham. Friedrich Krembs (Trihydro Corporation/USA)

* Site Characterization and Remedial Planning for TCE-Impacted Groundwater in Saprolite and Crystalline Bedrock. J. Zoeckler and C. Jettie. Christina Jettie (Hana Engineers & Consultants, LLC/USA)

* Streamlining the Path to Site Closure Using a Two-Dimensional Spreadsheet Model and a Three-Dimensional Visualization Tool. M.G. Sweetenham and A. Riffel. Michael Sweetenham (Trihydro Corporation/USA)

* Temporal and Spatial Statistical Monitoring Optimization Applications and Plan Modification Success. S.G. Lehrke and G.M. Wilming. Stephen Lehrke (Foth/USA)

Type Curves to Estimate Cleanup Time for Different Hydrogeologic Settings. K.Y. Cha, R.C. Borden, and B. Yuncu. Ki Young Cha (Solutions-IES a division of Draper Aden Associate/USA)

* Using Modified Stiff Diagrams and 1,1-DCA as Conservative Tracer to Support Site Closure. A. Verce, T.A. Eliasson, and T.J. Fojut. Anja Verce (Weiss Associates/USA)

D2. Big Data, Data Mining, and Portfolio OptimizationPlatforms Monday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Travis McGuire (GSI Environmental, Inc.) and Victor Sewaybricker (Geoklock)

Applications of R and Machine Learning to Groundwater Data. T. Kalinowski, T. Abdul-Matin, M. Panciera, and L. Hellerich. Tomasz Kalinowski (AECOM/USA)

Combining ERH and TCH for More Effective Remediation: Don’t Restrict Your ROD or RFP to a Single Heating Technology. G. Heron, J. Galligan, M. Dodson, and R. Flatley. Gorm Heron (TerraTherm, Inc./USA)

* = poster presentations

44

A Dirty Secret: Duplicate Variability in Summa Canister Samples for Vapor Intrusion Investigations. T. McHugh, C. Villarreal, S. Rauch, and L. Beckley. Thomas McHugh (GSI Environmental, Inc./USA)

* Evaluation of Long-Term Performance and Sustained Treatment at Enhanced Anaerobic Bioremediation Sites: An Update. K.L. Walker, T.M. McGuire, D.T. Adamson, and C.J. Newell. Kenneth Walker (GSI Environmental, Inc./USA)

* Findings from a Machine Learning Approach to Planning Site Characterization. J. Dalton, A. Harrington, and R. Knox. Jason Dalton (Azimuth1/USA)

Optimization of a Large, Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Program. C. Holbert, S. Smith, M. Roginske, K. Bradley, A. Castor, G. Colgan, J. Cox, T. Isakson, M. Reynolds, and A. Dziechciarz. Charles Holbert (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Over Twenty Years of 1,4-Dioxane Data at Multiple Sites: What Really Happens Long Term? B. Dahlgren, E. Glover, and E. Rogers. Bryon Dahlgren (AECOM/USA)

Tracking Cleanup of Chlorinated Solvents: Development of Benchmark Decay Rates. K.L. Walker, T.M. McGuire, D.T. Adamson, and C.J. Newell. Kenneth Walker (GSI Environmental, Inc./USA)

* Two “Flavors” of Big Data Studies in the Remediation Field: Methods and Example Applications. P. Kulkarni, C. Newell, T. McGuire, T. McHugh, J. McDade, and D. Adamson. Poonam Kulkarni (GSI Environmental, Inc./USA)

D3. Optimizing Remedial SystemsPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Gunarti Coghlan (U.S. Navy) and Jeffrey Pintenich (Brown and Caldwell)

* Adaptive Adaptation: Flexibility of Recirculation to Accommodate Plume Change. N. Miller, M. Schnobrich, and D. Sonders. Nick Miller (Arcadis/USA)

* Adaptive Design in Action: Fast-Tracking Site Remediation at an Active Industrial Facility. J. Martin Tilton, J. Ford, and M. McCaughey. Jennifer Martin Tilton (Arcadis/USA)

* Air Sparging as an Adaptive and Effective Plume Management Approach at Large DNAPL Sites. C.J. Pike, M.J. Deliz, M.J. Jonnet, C.A. Hook, and M.P. Speranza. Chris Pike (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc./USA)

* = poster presentations

Effective Remediation through Continuous Remedy Evaluation and Adaptation: A 20-Year Case Study. C. Elder, R. Scott, D. Wanty, and M. Miller. Carl R. Elder (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Environmental Fracturing in Low-K Conditions to Enhance Soil Vapor Extraction. S.G. Pitts, R.W. Blackmer, and K.P. Rohwer. Steven Pitts (Equipoise Corporation/USA)

* Facing Remediation Challenges and Overcoming Engineering Limitations: A Plan for Change. B.S. Langan and S.L. Knox. Bonani Langan (Wood/USA)

* In Situ Microcosms Demonstrate Value in Optimizing In Situ Remediation. M. Burns, M. Porter, D. Carstens, S. Haitz, and P. Groff. Matthew Burns (WSP/USA)

* In Situ Thermal Treatment with Integrated Vapor Oxidation Technology: Design and Lessons Learned with GTR-O Systems. X. Chen, B. Krumbholz, and C. Winell. Xiaosong Chen (GEO/USA)

* Laboratory Testing for Optimization of Lead Stabilization at a Former Oil Refinery. C. Bucior, S. Dore, D. Pope, R. Thomas, and A. Weston. Sophia Dore (GHD/USA)

* Lessons Learned in Optimizing Air Sparge/Soil Vapor Extraction at a Former Dry Cleaner Site. S. Saalfield, A. Riggs, and J. Hayward. Samantha Saalfield (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC/USA)

* Optimization of EISB and MNA Confirmation at a Complex Site Using Multiple Evaluation Tools. L. MacKinnon, M. McMaster, S. Mancini, L. Zimmerman, C. Elmendorf, B. Dean, and A. McCord. Leah MacKinnon (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./Canada)

Optimization of Hydraulic Capture of CVOCs and Management of Injection Well Fouling for a Groundwater Treatment and Injection System. J. Williams, C. Canfield, and I. Jones. John Williams (The Boeing Company/USA)

* Optimization of Remedial Design and Regulatory Corrective Action in a Multi-Layer Geology Using Fate and Transport Modeling. N.M. Talimcioglu and P. Ludvigsen. N. Mete Talimcioglu (First Environment, Inc./USA)

* Optimized Treatment of 1,4-Dioxane in Extracted Groundwater and Reinjection for Aquifer Replenishment. T. Kruk, J. Engels, K. Spikes, and S. Woodard. Taras Kruk (EHS Support, LLC/USA)

45

Optimizing a Complex Remediation Project in an Evolving Environment. C. Coladonato, B. Goodwin, and P. Nadebaum. Peter Nadebaum (GHD/Australia)

Remedial Process Optimization of a Groundwater Extraction and Recharge System at a Superfund Site in New Jersey. M. Ostrowski, J.R. Caputi, C. Meyn, and S. Havlik. Marek Ostrowski (Brown and Caldwell/USA)

Remedy Performance Reporting: Driving Remediation System Optimization and Site Progression. K.M. Lienau, D. Sweeten, and C. Blanchard. Kevin M. Lienau (GES/USA)

* Shut-Down Test after 22 Years of Groundwater Treatment Reveals Optimal Strategy. S. Knox, D. Barsotti, and D. Young. Sheri Knox (Wood/USA)

U.S. EPA Superfund Optimization: Progress and Outcomes. K. Biggs, E. Gilbert, M. Jefferson, and C. Pachon. Carlos Pachon (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/USA)

* Using Soil Gas Concentration Mapping to Predict Soil Vapor Extraction Radius of Influence Variances and Optimize Remedial System Design. C. Martin. Collin Martin (EnviroForensics LLC/USA)

Utilizing a Contaminant Transport Model to Assess Remedial Alternatives, Estimate Cleanup Times, and Ultimately Optimize the Existing Remedial System. M. Coram, T. Kinney, and T. DeFouw. Michael Coram (GHD Services, Inc./USA)

* When a Temporary Solution Becomes a Long-Term System. R. Evans. Richard Evans (Groundwater & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

* You Have to Spend Money to Save Money: The Business Case for Pre-Remedial Assessment. D. Nelson, J. Byrd, E. Hollifield, and D. Gomes. Denice Nelson (ERM/USA)

D4. Advances in Monitoring Injection Effectiveness (e.g., Radius of Influence)Platforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Victor Medina (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and Scott Noland (Remediation Products, Inc.)

Application of Helium and Sulfur Hexafluoride as Tracer Gasses to Optimize Air Sparging Performance. A. Hodges, T.H. Feng, and B. Dehghi. Alan Hodges (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Applications of Electrical Resistivity Tomography to Support Remedy Selection and Implementation. T. Johnson, M. Truex, C. Strickland, J. Thomle, S. Springer, B. Williams, F. Elloy, P. Baynes, and M. Byrnes. Michael Truex (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory/USA)

Case Studies: Field QA/QC Monitoring of Subsurface BOS 100® Injections. N. Lichti, B. Tunnicliffe, and M. Mazzarese. Nathan Lichti (Vertex Environmental Inc./Canada)

* Digital Documentation and Evaluation of CPS Distribution in Soil Cores Following Injection for Hexavalent Chromium Fixation. C.S. Alger, N. Gregory, E. Levy, and J. Marshak. Christopher S. Alger (Terraphase Engineering/USA)

* Geophysics Tomography for Time-Lapse Mapping of In Situ STAR Thermal Remediation. L.M. Trento, J.I. Gerhard, P. Tsourlos, M. McMaster, A. Sims, D. Liefl, and J. Vidumsky. Jason Gerhard (University of Western Ontario/Canada)

* Lines of Evidence for Injection Solution Distribution in a Groundwater Transition Zone. C. Bell, F. Stanin, D. Garcia, and D. Eley. Caitlin Bell (Arcadis/USA)

Temporal Surface Geophysical Mapping to Assess Permanganate Injection Distribution and Recirculation Using a 100-Foot Deep Horizontal Well. T. Halihan, M. Fulkerson, J. High, and S. McDonald. Todd Halihan (Oklahoma State University/USA)

* The Use of High-Resolution Tools for Preliminary Assessment of ROI of Injections of Remediation Products. V.V. Sewaybricker and R. Spina. Victor Vanin Sewaybricker (GEOKLOCK/Brazil)

* Using High-Resolution Data to Evaluate Distribution and Effectiveness of In Situ Injectates. T.A. Harp. Tom Harp (LT Environmental, Inc./USA)

Using Multiple Techniques to Monitor Effectiveness of In Situ Injections. T.A. Harp. Tom Harp (LT Environmental, Inc./USA)

Where’s Waldo: Finding Injected Amendments and Estimating Radius of Influence at a Former Retail Station in Rural Kentucky. W. Brab, B. Borth, and R. Boyle. William Brab (AST Environmental, Inc./USA)

* = poster presentations

46

D5. Assessing Performance and Cost of RemediesPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Rick Gillespie (Regenesis) and Charles Newell (GSI Environmental, Inc.)

* An Accurate and Auditable Cost Estimating Tool for Environmental Remediation Financial Liability. A. Kakai. Anne Kakai (AECOM/USA)

Balancing the Cost of Short-Term Cleanup and Long-Term Stewardship during Remediation Decision Making. J. Carnahan. Jeffrey Carnahan (EnviroForensics, LLC/USA)

* Cost-Effectiveness of In Situ Aerobic Cometabolic Biodegradation for Treating Large Deep Dilute Plumes Containing 1,4-Dioxane and CVOCs. M.Y. Chu, P. Bennett, and R. Borrego. Min-Ying Jacob Chu (Haley & Aldrich, Inc./USA)

Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination (ERD) Treatment of Large-Scale Chlorinated Solvent Site: Evaluation of Substrate Options, Unit Costs, and Performance Data. T. McKeon and T. Colligan. Tom McKeon (CALIBRE Systems, Inc./USA)

Estimating the Costs of and Performing the Remedy at the SRSNE Superfund Site. B. Thompson and M. Gefell. Bruce Thompson (de maximis, inc./USA)

Hudson River Post-Remediation: When Can We Expect to Achieve Remedial Goals and How Do We Measure It? The 2017 Five-Year Review. E.A. Garvey, S. Gbondo-Tugbawa, J. Atmadja, M. Traynor, K. Takagi, B. Fidler, J. Kern, J. Wolfe, K. von Stackelberg, G. Klawinski, and M.S. Greenberg. Edward Garvey (Louis Berger/USA)

Intergenerational Cost Estimates: Challenges and Solutions for Long-Term Cleanup Decision Making. P.J. Favara, K.D. Thomsen, and D. Pitzler. Paul Favara (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Large Diffuse Plume Alternative Approach to Pump and Treat/MCLs: A Sustainable Plume Management Approach Using the Arizona WQARF Model. S.P. Zachary, E. Pigati, and P. Panzino. Scott Zachary (Haley & Aldrich, Inc./USA)

* Performance-Based Remediation: Cost-to-Objective Achieved Utilizing In Situ Reductive Remediation of Chlorinated Solvents. S. Betts. Steve Betts (Groundwater & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

* Simulation-Based Optimal Placement of Slow Release Oxidant Cylinders and Comparison of Cost with Injections. J.L. Clark-Stone, K.R. Kavannagh, M. Crimi, and G. Yao. Jesse L. Clark-Stone (Clarkson University/USA)

* Source Remediation of Chlorinated Ethenes Using Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination and a Change in Strategy toward Performance-Based Delivery. J.E. Day, M. Perlmutter, G. Van den Daele, R. Francioso, and T. Keijzer. Jim Day (CH2M HILL/Germany)

Targeted In Situ Remediation of Multiple Contaminants to Achieve Site Closure in a Performance-Based Remediation Contract. S. Suryanarayanan, P. Srivastav, S. Watson, A. Willmore, and R. Mayer. Sowmya Suryanarayanan (APTIM/USA)

D6. Applications of Mass Flux and Mass Discharge for Remedial Design/OptimizationPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Michael Annable (University of Florida) and Nicklaus Welty (Arcadis)

* Comparison of Three Mass Flux Estimation Methods Applied to a NAPL-Impacted Sedimentary Aquifer in Brazil. G. Van den Daele, P. Rego, L. Ribeiro, W. LeFevre, E. Spande, C. Mowder, M. Sherrier, and J. Henderson. Gerd Van den Daele (CH2M/Brazil)

Development of Advanced Single-Well Applied Tracer Techniques for Improving Reliability of Groundwater and Contaminant Mass Flux Monitoring. S. Brouyère, P. Jamin, P. Orban, A. Dassargues, and F. Cosme. Serge Brouyère (University of Liège/Belgium)

Evaluation of Mass Discharge to Surface Water in Tidally-Influenced Aquifer by Passive Flux Meters. R.K. Sillan. Randall Sillan (AECOM/USA)

* Field and Laboratory Comparison of an Innovative Velocity Tool with Other Methods for Velocity Measurement in Aquifers. E. Essouayed and O. Atteia. Elyess Essouayed (INNOVASOL/France)

* Groundwater Flux Modeling of Chlorinated Compounds through Metamorphic Fractured Bedrock in Rhode Island. J. Bartos, J. Hershberger, N. Goulding, and J. Breza. John Bartos (EHS Support LLC/USA)

* High-Resolution Mass Discharge Evaluation at a Chlorinated Solvent Release Site in Sao Paulo, Brazil. O. Miles, M. Einarson, and M. Singer. Owen Miles (Haley and Aldrich/USA)

* Mass Discharge Approved as Primary Regulatory Criteria at Two Major Industrial Sites. A.A. Rees and K. Green. Assaf Rees (AECOM/USA)

* = poster presentations

47

Mass Flux as a Tool for Evaluating and Demonstrating Remedial Objectives and Optimizing a Combined Remedy Hydraulic Containment and Bioremediation System. J. Langenbach, J. Bartlett, and S. Thotapalli. Jim Langenbach (Geosyntec Consultants/USA)

* Passive Flux Sampling in Groundwater: Guidelines and Demonstration Cases with iFLUX Samplers. G. Verreydt, P. Meire, T. Op’t Eyndt, F. Meesters, I. Van Keer, and J. Bronders. Goedele Verreydt (University of Antwerp/Belgium)

* A Passive Method for Measuring Microbial Biomass Flux in Porous Media. A. Haluska, A. Ogram, J. Cho, and M. Annable. Alexander Haluska (University of Florida/USA)

A Practical Framework for Flux-Based Monitoring Programs. A. Horneman, C. Divine, T. Sandtangelo-Dreiling, S. Lloyd, H. Anderson, M.B. Smith, and J.E. McCray. Allan Horneman (Arcadis/USA)

* Return on Investigation (ROI) Using SMART Characterization Approach for the Remedial Design of a TCE Plume in a Granitic Weathered Bedrock Aquifer in Brazil. L.J. Athayde, F. Gutierres, K.F. Barbosa, R.B. Santini, V.F. Bernardo, and P.L. Lima. Lucas Athayde (Arcadis/Brazil)

* Site-Specific Geochemical and Mass Flux Assessments for Metals Lead to Optimized Groundwater Remedial Approach Adjacent to a River. C. Reuter, S. Havlik, R. Fraser, E. Roaza, A. Lillie, N. Goulding, and J. Vondracek. Ernie Roaza (EHS Support LLC/USA)

* = poster presentations

Panel Discussion—Wednesday, Track D

Building a Remedy with the End in Mind: Advances in Adaptive Management for Efficient Cleanup of Complex Sites

ModeratorsKira Lynch (U.S. EPA)

Tamzen Macbeth (CDM Smith)

PanelistsDavid Becker (USACE)

Tom Blackman (Lockheed Martin)Alec Naugle (CA RWQCB)

Hope Lee (DOE HQ) (pending confirmation)Insurance Industry representative (pending confirmation)

As cleanup programs for complex contaminated sites mature, those remaining often have significant underlying technical challenges and financial constraints. One of the most significant technical challenges is the presence of nonaqueous phase liquids (NAPL) in groundwater. The focus of this panel will be on developing adaptive site management strategies as the primary approach for addressing dense nonaqueous phase liquid (DNAPL)/ light nonaqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) site remedial actions. More often than not, significant remediation efforts at these “complex” sites have not, or cannot, practically achieve stringent, promulgated cleanup goals. Decisions then have to be made about whether and how to commit additional resources towards achieving meaningful remedial progress and protection of receptors. Often, there is significant uncertainty in the site conceptual model as programmatic decisions are made for implementing remedial actions, which can create barriers to efficient cleanup when conditions are different. Often, adaptive management approaches are better suited to facilitate meaningful cleanup by using an adaptive framework to reduce risk to human health and the environment as progress is made and more is learned about the site during implementation. The panel will be made up of leading researchers and practitioners working to understand the nature of the problem and have experience implementing adaptive remedial strategies that meet the needs of various regulatory programs. An important component of this panel will be an effort to reach out to a wide group of industry experts, regulators, and program managers to identify programmatic, scientific and engineering insights to advance more efficient cleanups. Among the topics to be discussed:• How are decisions made about moving forward with remediation? (What is the risk profile? What is the return on

investment? Are goals achievable?)• What are the options for developing NAPL source zone remedial action objectives?• How are technical risks quantified to financial risks and incorporated into program management and planning?• Developing holistic, sustainable plume management strategies with consideration of site complexity and significant

uncertainty in the decision process.• Appropriate roles for risk based strategies (i.e. low-threat closure), monitored natural attenuation (MNA) and technical

impractibility (TI) waivers.• How to develop multi—technology strategies with interim performance goals to achieve progress and protect receptors.

48

Spatially-Averaged, Flow-Weighted Concentrations: A More Relevant Regulatory Metric for Groundwater Cleanup. M. Einarson. Murray Einarson (Haley & Aldrich, Inc./USA)

* Transient Mass Discharge Reduction versus Source Mass Reduction Following an In Situ LNAPL Source Remediation. S.R. Lenschow, A.G. Christensen, A.M.B. Lindof, P. de Blanc, and K. Kostarelos. Soren Lenschow (NIRAS A/S/Denmark)

Use of Flux Measurement for Remedial Design Optimization of a Combined Remedy for Source Treatment and Large Dilute Plume Management. K. Lynch, T. Macbeth, D. Giaudrone, N.L. Smith, R. Chichakli, C. Cora, and R. Fuentes. Kira Lynch (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/USA)

* Use of Mass Discharge Performance Metrics to Transition an Active LNAPL Source Area Remedy to MNA. A.L. Gray, A. Krasnopoler, and R.M. Glazier. Adam Gray (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

D7. Reusing and Revitalizing Contaminated SitesPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Stewart Abrams (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services Inc.) and Frederick Blickle (GHD)

* Bioremediation and Enhanced Chemical Reduction via EZVI at an Active Brownfield Redevelopment Site. L. Zeng and B. Gochenur. Brian Gochenaur (Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

* The Challenges of Relying on Land Use Planning for Remedy Decisions at Hunters Point Shipyard. D. Shipman, C. Rain, A. Brownell, and T. Drew. Christina L. Rain (Langan/USA)

* Combined Treatment Train to Address Mixed Plume at an Urban Brownfield Site. J.F. Good, J. Hayes, B. Gochenaur, M. Burke, A. Schmiedicke, L. Zeng, S. Abrams, and M. Dooley. Joseph Good (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services/USA)

* Combining Multiple Remedial Technologies to Accelerate Property Development and Manage Off-Site Risk. C.M. Taddeo, D. Taylor, P. Dombrowski, and M. Mazzarese. Carol-Anne M. Taddeo (AECOM/USA)

* Commercial Redevelopment in East Bay San Francisco: Managing Residual PCB-Contaminated Soil. F.W. Blickle and N. Colley. Frederick Blickle (GHD/USA)

* The Development of Environmental Site Restrictions for Construction and Revitalized Use of a Contaminated Site. B. Landale. Beth Landale (GHD/USA)

* Emerging Contaminant Considerations while Performing Due Diligence for Property Transactions. C. Leas, J. Hayes, M. Burke, and J. Good. Jason Hayes (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services/USA)

* Importance of Working with Regulatory Agencies for Cost-Effective, Ex Situ Stabilization of Heavy Metals. M.J. Quimby and J.A. Lively. James Lively (TDJ Group/USA)

Integrating Remediation Systems with Site Redevelopment: A New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program Site Case Study. O. Uppal, S. Ciambruschini, C. McMahon, M. Ambrusch, N. Najib, S. Abrams, and I. Khan. Omer Uppal (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

Redevelopment of Treasure Island: Overcoming Long-Lasting Remedial Challenges. E. Kimbrel, C. Glenn, D. Shipman, and R. Beck. Elizabeth Kimbrel (Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

Restoration of a Coal Ash and Power Station Site: Science, Perception and Regulations. F.A. Abo and C. Rigby. Fouad Abo (GHD/Australia)

* Returning Former NFD Point Molate to Beneficial Reuse: The Challenging Cleanup of a Fuel- and Metal-Impacted Sump Pond. W.L. Carson, T. Schetrit, J.R. Raines, and P. Zawislanski. William L. Carson (Terraphase Engineering Inc./USA)

Reusing and Revitalizing a Contaminated Former Production and Testing Facility in a Rust Belt City. T. Kinney, M. Coram, and G. Trigger. Thomas Kinney (GHD/USA)

Seven Remediation and Mitigation Techniques in Use at One Active Brownfield Redevelopment Site. J.M. Yeager, J.B. Connolly, A.J. Blayney, D.G. Larson, and C.M. Ross. Jessica Yeager (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Simultaneous Remediation of a Former Gasoline Filling Station and Construction of a 10-Story Mixed Use Development. B. Gochenaur, H. Nichols, S. Abrams, M. Burke, and J. Hayes. Brian Gochenaur (Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

* Transforming Alameda Point: Reuse and Revitalization of a Superfund Site. D. Shipman, C. Rain, J. Ernst, B. Graves, and J. Feeley. Christina L. Rain (Langan/USA)

* = poster presentations

49* = poster presentations

Use of In Situ Remediation Technology at Redevelopment Sites: An Overview and Lessons Learned. S. Abrams, L. Zeng, O. Uppal, H. Nichols, J. Good, M. Burke, and J. Ludlow. Stewart Abrams (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services Inc./USA)

D8. GSR Best Practices and Case StudiesPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Carlos Pachon (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and Russell Sirabian (Battelle)

* Accelerating Cleanup, Reducing Costs, and Increasing Sustainability at Travis Air Force Base. J. Gamlin, P. Favara, D. Berwick, L. Duke, and G. Anderson. Jeff Gamlin (CH2M HILL/USA)

ASTM E2893-16 Greener Cleanup Self-Declaration at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. M. Fulkerson, B. Reid, P. Favara, M. Louth, D. Cleland, and C. Delaney. Monica Fulkerson (CH2M HILL/USA)

Green and Sustainable Remediation of Contaminated Land in China: Perception, Progress, and Path Forward. D. Hou and Y. Song. Deyi Hou (Tsinghua University/China)

* Green/Sustainable Petroleum Management: Building a Dataset around an Intuitive Connection. A. Pennington, J. Gattemby, R. Ahlers, C. Flanders, D. Randhawa, M. Chalfant, and S. Dunn. Andy Pennington (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* Harnessing the Power of the Sun: Designing Optimized Remediation Systems Using Solar Power at Travis Air Force Base. D. Berwick, J. Gamlin, G. Anderson, and L. Duke. Douglas Berwick (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Lowering the Carbon Footprint of Thermal Remediation Systems. J. Dinham, J. Baldock, J. Brett, S. Tillotson, and J. Dablow. Joanne Dinham (ERM/United Kingdom)

* Management of Wood from Site Clearing and Storm Debris. D. Cutt, D. Carpenter, K. Giacalone, T. Hwilka, J. McKernan, K. Litzenberger, C. Pachon, S. Rock, D. Salkie, S. Vaughn, and K. Weitz. Diana Cutt (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/USA)

Performance, Cost, and Emissions Optimization Using Solar-Powered ISB System. M.G. Sweetenham, F.J. Krembs, S. Lombardo, G. Risse, and G. Mathes. Michael Sweetenham (Trihydro Corporation/USA)

* Reduced Carbon Inputs for an Innovative Large-Scale Sub-Slab Depressurization System Using a Repurposed HVAC Distribution System. K. Eisen, A. Zack, N. Czoschke, and B. Schwie. Kevin Eisen (Barr Engineering Company/USA)

* Setting Your Project Up for Successful GSR Outcomes. P.J. Favara. Paul Favara (CH2M HILL/USA)

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

* Wind-Driven Air Sparge System for Passive Remediation of Hydrocarbons in Groundwater. M. Olson, J. Pruis, T. Moloney, B. McAlexander, M. Lyverse, and J. Wong. Mitchell Olson (Trihydro Corporation/USA)

Working on the Railroad: Implementation of Sustainable Remediation at a Programmatic Level. G. Wolf and S. Pittenger. Gerlinde Wolf (AECOM/USA)

D9. GSR Metrics and Resiliency EvaluationsPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: John Simon (Gnarus Advisors) and Rick Wice (Battelle)

* Adopting Sustainable Remediation Concepts to Improve Performance of a Waste Removal Project in Brazil. B.E. Sciulli and F. Coelho. Berguedof E. Sciulli (ERM/Brazil)

Battelle Methodology for Evaluating Climate Change Resilience of Environmental Remediation Sites. S. Moore, R. Sirabian, and W. Condit. Sam Moore (Battelle/USA)

* Can Thermal Remediation Be Sustainable? Use of Modelling to Optimize Design. J. Dinham, J. Baldock, and J. Dablow. Joanne Dinham (ERM/United Kingdom)

* Can We Quantitatively Select The “Greenest” Cleanup Standard? D. Hou. Deyi Hou (Tsinghua University/China)

* Climate Change Adaption: Waste Sites and Wildfires. E. Beckwith, J. Claypool, and K.J. Tipton. Eleanor Beckwith (Brown and Caldwell/USA)

* Developing Optimized Remedies for Complex Sites: Technology Assignment Framework, Sustainability, and Resiliency. D. Janda, E. Blischke, M. Harclerode, T. Macbeth, and M. Fattahipour. Melissa Harclerode (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

* Feasibility of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Offsets at Petroleum Release Sites. B. McAlexander. Ben McAlexander (Trihydro Corporation/USA)

50

* From Non-Linear Geostatistics to Scraper Grading: How to Minimize Excavation Costs for Site Redevelopment while Minimizing Greenhouse Impact of Remedial Operations. F. Achour. Farid Achour (Ramboll Environ/USA)

Incorporating Climate Change into Long-Term Remedies and Operation and Maintenance Plans. L.J. Pype and M.A. Harclerode. Lucinda Pype (CDM Smith/USA)

* State of the Practice of Sea Level Rise and Climate Change as Related to Site Remediation. R. Wice. Rick Wice (Battelle/USA)

Sustainable Remediation of Polluted Agricultural Land in China. D. O’Connor and D. Hou. David O’Connor (Tsinghua University/China)

* Sustainable Remediation of Solid Waste: How to Nip it in the BUD. S. Ng and K. McCarty. Stacey Ng (Integral Consulting Inc./USA)

Transforming Environmental Liabilities into Assets: A Brazil-Based Case Study. P. Barreto, J. Henderson, P. Carvalho, R. Silva, C. Martins, O. Maurer, and P. Favara. Paola Barreto Quintero (CH2M HILL/USA)

E1. Fractured Rock Site CharacterizationPlatforms Monday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Jason R. House (Woodard & Curran) and Michael Smith (VT Dept Environmental Conservation)

* Airborne Geophysical Program to Evaluate the Tertiary Ogallala and White River Groups Hydrostratigraphy, Laramie County, Wyoming. P.G. Ivancie and J. Abraham. Paul Ivancie (Wood/USA)

Characterization of Rock Matrix Properties Controlling Contaminant Storage in Fractured Rock Using Novel Geophysical Technologies. L.D. Slater, J. Robinson, K. Keating, B. Parker, S. Falzone, C. Rose, S. Chapman, C. Johnson, and F.D. Day-Lewis. Lee D. Slater (Rutgers University Newark/USA)

* Characterization of Vertical Migration of PCE in a Granitic Aquifer Using Specialty Surface Geophysics. T. Halihan and S. McDonald. Todd Halihan (Oklahoma State University/USA)

Conceptual Site Model Development for Migration of MGP Tar and Related Groundwater Impacts in a Highly Deformed Fractured Rock Unit. R. O’Neill, J. Marolda, and S. Stucker. Robert O’Neill (Brown and Caldwell/USA)

A Field Method to Quantify Chlorinated Solvent Diffusion, Retardation and Degradation Coefficients in Fractured Sedimentary Rock. R.M. Allen-King, R. Kiekhaefer, and J. Brotsch. Richelle M. Allen-King (University at Buffalo, SUNY/USA)

Hydraulic Tomography: 3-D Hydraulic Conductivity and Fracture Connectivity in a Contaminated Mudstone Aquifer, Newark Basin, New Jersey. W. Barrash, C.R. Tiedeman, C. Thrash, J. Patterson, and C.D. Johnson. Warren Barrash (Boise State University/USA)

Insights from Multi-Method High-Resolution Characterization of Contaminant Distributions in Sedimentary versus Igneous Rock Settings. S.W. Chapman, B.L. Parker, S. Pitkin, T.E. Imbrigiotta, D.J. Goode, and L. Davidsson. Steven Chapman (University of Guelph/Canada)

Lessons Learned from High-Resolution Site Characterization of Many Dual-Porosity Fractured Rock Sites. S. Pitkin. Seth Pitkin (Cascade/USA)

* A New Method for Efficient High-Resolution Mapping of DNAPL and Dissolved Phase Contamination in Fractured Bedrock. C. Keller, M. Higgins, B. Parker, S. Chapman, and S. Pitkin. Carl Keller (Flexible Liner Underground Technologies/USA)

Selection, Design and Construction of a Multilevel Groundwater Monitoring System. J.N. Dougherty. John N. Dougherty (CDM Smith/USA)

State of the Practice in Geophysical Site Characterization and Monitoring. F.D. Day-Lewis, L.D. Slater, and T.C. Johnson. Frederick D. Day-Lewis (U.S. Geological Survey/USA)

TCE Source Area Investigation in Fractured Bedrock Using Phytoscreening and Membrane Interface Probe Sampling at a Former Landfill. K. Fox, F. Barranco, J. Drummond, B. Rundell, and R. Bower. Kathy Fox (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC/USA)

E2. Managing/Remediating Chlorinated Solvent Impacts at Fractured Bedrock SitesPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Naji Akladiss (Maine Department of Environmental Protection) and Larry Deschaine (HydroGeoLogic, Inc.)

* Anaerobic Biodegradation Rates and Controlling Factors for Trichloroethene and Its Fluorinated Surrogate in Fractured Rock. M.M. Lorah, C. Morel, D.A. Akob, R. Allen-King, and T.E. Imbrigiotta. Michelle M. Lorah (U.S. Geological Survey/USA)

* = poster presentations

51

* Application of In Situ Chemical Reduction (ISCR) to Treat Chlorinated Ethenes in Fractured Bedrock at a Redevelopment Site. F.S. Lakhwala, R. Srirangam, R. Harwood, E. Mertz, M. Meriney, and L. Dodge. Fayaz Lakhwala (PeroxyChem, LLC/USA)

* Assessment of PlumeStop® to Manage Back Diffusion at a Fractured Sandstone Site. M. Burns, M. Brown, S. Schoenmann, T. Huff, and S. Kretschman. Matthew Burns (WSP/USA)

* Case Study of TCE Source Zone Treatment Using Potassium Permanganate In Situ Chemical Oxidation in a Crystalline Bedrock Aquifer. A. Franze, J. Kasper, and J. Zubrow. Andrew Franze (Key Environmental/USA)

Contraction of a 15-Acre TCE Plume in Overburden and Bedrock Three Years after Full-Scale Barrier Construction by Controlled-Jet ZVI Injection. G. Maalouf, S. Golaski, D. Bryant, D. Knight, and B. Slack. Dan Bryant (Woodard & Curran/USA)

* Enhanced Bioremediation in Weathered Bedrock: Modifying ROD Selected Remedy, Design, and Implementation. D. Bytautas, P. Dombrowski, M. Snyder, and C. Weeden. Dustin Bytautas (AECOM/USA)

* Evaluation of ISCO Oxidant-Infused Wax Cylinders within a Tetrachloroethene-Impacted Fractured Bedrock Aquifer. J. MacQueen, B. Dietert, A. Lindley, J. Shirley, and G. Lyssy. Jessica MacQueen (Parsons Corporation/USA)

* First European Thermal Remediation of Crystalline Bedrock. N. Ploug, J. Holm, and S.G. Nielsen. Niels Ploug (Kruger A/S/Denmark)

* Flux Mapping to Optimize Hydraulic Containment Systems in Bedrock Aquifers. M.K. Cobb, M.D. LeFrancois, and M.R. Schnobrich. Michael Cobb (Arcadis U.S., Inc./USA)

* Fractured Bedrock Remediation: Multiple Pilot Test Program Produces Cost-Effective Site-Wide Remediation. B.S. Langan and J. Bennett. Bonani Langan (Wood/USA)

* Geochemical and Microbiological Progress Metrics for Bioremediation of Mixed Chlorinated Ethenes and Methanes. B. Bond, M. Morris, L. Zeng, and S. Abrams. Bob Bond (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

How Does Understanding Matrix Diffusion help to Remediate Fractured Bedrock Sites? K. Johnson, J. Baldock, and K. Leahy. Kathryn Johnson (ERM/United Kingdom)

Implementing Complementary Remedies for Source and Distal Plume Areas of a Mixed Chlorinated Plume in a Fractured Shale Aquifer. K. Kelly, B. Bond, S. Abrams, and L. Zeng. Kevin Kelly (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

* In Situ Remediation of a Fractured Sedimentary Bedrock Groundwater and Overburden Impacted with TCE through Organic Carbon and Soluble Iron Injections: Pilot-Scale and Full-Scale Results. K. Ramanand, T. Chaturgan, K.D. Dyson, and P. Randazzo. Karnam Ramanand (Brown and Caldwell/USA)

ITRC’s Guidance for Characterization and Remediation of Fractured Bedrock: Part I Characterization. M.B. Smith, R. Wymore, and N.A. Akladiss. Michael Smith (VT Dept Environmental Conservation/USA)

ITRC’s Guidance for Characterization and Remediation of Fractured Bedrock: Part 2 Remediation. R.A. Wymore, M.B. Smith, and N. Akladiss. Ryan Wymore (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

* Long-Term Strategies for Persulfate Injection into Fractured Rock. G.R. Carey and R. McGregor. Grant Carey (Porewater Solutions/Canada)

PCE and Daughter Remediation in Limestone Bedrock: Brownfields Redevelopment of a Former Tubing Manufacturing Facility. R.W. Johnston and W.B. Brab. R. William Johnston (Linebach Funkhouser, Inc./USA)

* Seeking Site Closure in Bedrock: In Situ Chemical Oxidation Strategy for Treatment of a TCE Plume in Fractured Bedrock. H. Nichols, E. Sterzinar, B. Blum, and S. Abrams. Howard Nichols (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services/USA)

Stimulating and Quantifying TCE Biodegradation in Multiple Fractured Bedrock Strata. P.W. Hare, M.R. Harkness, R.E. Morse, P.A. Freyer, and J.M. Uruskyj. Paul Hare (OBG/USA)

Treatment of TCE to 30 Meters in Fractured Granite: How to Close a Site When You Cannot Drill and Sample the Rock. G. Heron, S. Nielsen, A. Bonarrigo, A. Caravella, E. Pearson, and C. Serlin. Gorm Heron (TerraTherm, Inc./USA)

E3. Karst Aquifer Case StudiesPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Stephen Rosansky (Battelle) and Keith White (ARCADIS U.S., Inc.)

* After the Injections: Karst Remediation of PCE. K.E. Thompson. Karen E. Thompson (Smith Management Group/USA)

* = poster presentations

52

* Characterization of Fate and Transport Processes and Contaminant Distribution in Karst Groundwater Systems. N.I. Torres, J. Toro, E. Rodriguez-Medina, and I.Y. Padillla. Norma I. Torres (University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez/USA)

The Detection of Deep Karst Features Using New Geophysical Technique “MERIT.” D. Harro and H. Kiflu. David Harro (G3 Group/USA)

* Karstic Terrain Hydrogeologic Characteristics Challenges to Protective Remedy Selection and Implementation. D.T. Heidlauf, B. Kennington, S. Popelar, and A. DeDolph. David Heidlauf (Ramboll Environ/USA)

* Lesson Learned from Deep Soil Gas Profiles in a Fractured Aquifer at an Ammunition Factory in Israel. G. Reshef and N.Z. Dvory. Guy Reshef (Israel Water Authority/Israel)

Long Distance Transport of TCE Vapors in a Cavernous Karst Area. T. Aley, N. Keith, and S. Beeman. Shiloh Beeman (Ozark Underground Laboratory/USA)

* Multiple Lines-of-Evidence Approach for Optimizing Operation of a TCE Remedial System in a Karstic Aquifer. P. Mugunthan, B.S. Kennington, A.E. DeDolph, and S. Tarmann. Pradeep Mugunthan (Ramboll Environ/USA)

* Observations following 10 Years of Bioreactor Operations in a South-Central Texas Fractured Bedrock Aquifer. B. Dietert, J. MacQueen, K. Rice, J. Shirley, and G. Lyssy. Bradly Dietert (Parsons Corporation/USA)

* Remediation of a Large Gasoline Spill in Bermuda’s Karst Terrane. K.A. White, R. Bastida, and J. Perella. Keith White (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

Successful Bioaugmentation for DNAPL Carbon Tetrachloride in a Karst Aquifer. M.F. deFlaun, C.R. Elder, and R. Gross. Mary deFlaun (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

Thermal Remediation of Karst Limestone at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. C. Crownover, L. Soos, C. Thomas, and S. Wilson. Lauren Soos (TRS Group, Inc./USA)

E4. Adaptive Site Management and Risk Management StrategiesPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Rula Anselmo Deeb (Geosyntec Consultants) and Kathleen Stetser (GEI Consultants, Inc.)

* An Adaptive Approach to Integrating RCRA Corrective Action with Facility Demolition. D. Marquez, M. Hildebrandt, C. Grant, and D. Barker. Diana Marquez (Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc./USA)

Can Aquifer Quality at Complex Remediation Sites be Restored? N. Grosso and G.P. Wealthall. Nancy Grosso (DuPont/USA)

* Enhanced In Situ Biosparge Treatment of Toluene through Adaptive Design/Management. M.W. Killingstad and T.P. Hays. Marc Killingstad (Arcadis/USA)

Integration of a Technical Impracticability Waiver and Groundwater Hydraulic Containment to Mitigate Risk at a Fractured Rock DNAPL Site. P.E. Nangeroni, J.R. House, A. Martin, and D. Dinsmore. Peter Nangeroni (Woodard & Curran/USA)

* LEAN Approaches to the Remediation Process. J. Dalton. Jason Dalton (Azimuth1/USA)

* A New Approach to Managing LNAPL. T.R. Andrews and C. David. Trevre Roys Andrews (CH2M/USA)

* Optimizing an Adaptive Remedy in a Highly Heterogeneous Aquifer Using Modeling. P.P. Brussock, D.K. Burnell, and J. Xu. Peter Brussock (The ELM Group, Inc./USA)

* Regulatory Negotiations: Case Study for the Remedy Development and Selections to Treat Large Complex Groundwater Plumes. M.H. Schulman, L. McGlochlin, D.R. Griffiths, J. Schuetz, and K. Garon. Michael Schulman (Parsons Engineering/USA)

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

The Use of Adaptive Management Approaches in Support of Remedial Design/Remedial Action at Two Superfund Sites. R.A. Wymore, M. Lamar, N. Smith, N. Smith, T. Macbeth, K. Sorenson, M.B. Smith, and S. Garcia. Ryan Wymore (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

* = poster presentations

53

E5. Large, Dilute and Commingled Plume Case StudiesPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Kira Lynch (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and Cathy Rockwell (Woodard & Curran)

* Case Study of the Biotreatment of a Dilute Chlorinated Solvent Plume in an Acidic Aerobic Aquifer. M.L. Alexander and C.A. Motley. Matthew Alexander (Texas A&M University-Kingsville/USA)

* Case Study: Biodegradation Potential Assessment at a Site Contaminated by a Chlorobenzene, BTEX, and Pharmaceuticals. O. Lhotsky and T. Cajthaml. Ondrej Lhotsky (DEKONTA a.s./Czech Republic)

* Distinguishing between Multiple Dry Cleaner Sources in a Commingled Chlorinated Solvent Groundwater Plume. K.R. Robrock and P.M. Mesard. Kristin Robrock (Exponent, Inc./USA)

* Enhanced Anaerobic Biodegradation of Trichloroethene and Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine in a Commingled Source Area Using Permeable Reactive Barriers and Groundwater Recirculation. S. Eichelberger and C. Crane. Shawn Eichelberger (HydroGeoLogic, Inc/USA)

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

* Evaluation of a Sustainable and Passive Approach to Treat Large, Dilute Chlorinated VOC Groundwater Plumes. D.R. Lippincott, G.M. Lavorgna, R. Rezes, P.G. van Groos, J.F. Begley, and D.W. Ombalski. David R. Lippincott (APTIM/USA)

* In Situ Chemical Reduction of Chlorinated Ethenes and its Effect on a Commingled Molybdenum Plume. G. Van den Daele, R. Francioso, M. Perlmutter, B. Schroth, J. Day, and T. Keijzer. Gerd Van den Daele (CH2M/Brazil)

* Integrated In-Well Air Stripping and In Situ Chemical Oxidation to Remediate a Large Dilute VOC Plume in a Deep Aquifer. D. Fisher, D. Smallbeck, N. Chrisman, and S. Pearson. Douglas Fisher (Wood/USA)

* Multiple Remediation Technologies and an Updated Conceptual Site Model to Treat a Large cVOC Plume. R.E. Mayer, J. Koelsch, K. Chambers, and C. Lutz. Robert Mayer (APTIM/USA)

* Optimizing Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation of Commingled Chlorinated Ethanes and Ethenes at Two Groundwater Remediation Sites. L. Hellerich, T. Kalinowski, P. Gratton, F. Barajas, K. Ryan, C. Shuman, and S. Sharma. Lucas Hellerich (AECOM/USA)

* Procedural Strategy for Management and Oversight of Commingled Plumes: A Regulatory Perspective. A. Kuoch. Alan Kuoch (State Water Resources Control Board/USA)

* Pump-and-Treat System at a Large Dilute Plume: Opportunities and Challenges for Drinking Water End Use. J. Chambon, K. Craig, B. Petty, and J. Nyman. Julie Chambon (Geosyntec Consultants/USA)

Remediation of a 3-Mile Hexavalent Chromium Plume in Hinkley, California. I. Baker, B. Brunswick, and M. Gentile. Iain Baker (Pacific Gas and Electric/USA)

San Fernando Valley Superfund Site: Case Study of a Regional Plume in Los Angeles County, California. N. Clite and K. Manheimer. Nova Clite (OTIE/USA)

* Simultaneous Degradation of Commingled Contaminants by a Microbially-Driven Fenton Reaction Operated in Fed-Batch and Flow-Through Reactor Configurations. Y. Toporek, N. Xie, R. Sekar, M. Taillefert, and T.J. DiChristina. Yael Toporek (Georgia Institute of Technology/USA)

* Site Characterization in Fractured Bedrock for Source Identification and Commingled Plume Evaluation. E. Palko and J. Hochreiter. Erin Palko (Integral Consulting Inc./USA)

* Stringfellow Superfund Site: Trichloroethene Revisited. J.M. Finegan and L.V. Simmons. James Finegan (Kleinfelder/USA)

Supplemental Investigation of Dilute and Diffuse Chlorinated Solvents in Groundwater: An Innovative Screening Approach. N.E.F. Rohrbach, N. Payton, and J. Sohl. Nick E.F. Rohrbach (GeoEngineers, Inc./USA)

* Technology Coupling for a Large TCE Plume Using a Subgrade Biogeochemical Reactor, Enhanced Phytoremediation, Biobarriers, and Enhanced Attenuation. D. Berwick, J. Gamlin, G. Anderson, and L. Duke. Douglas Berwick (CH2M HILL/USA)

Unmixing Dual Aquifer Commingled Plumes with a Bifurcated Tail and Two Distal Discharge Points. B. Bond, E. Magee, and M. Morris. Bob Bond (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

* Untangling a Commingled Plume: A Case Study of Overcoming Challenging Site Conditions. J. Brisman, C. Thomas, T. Geiger, and C. Elder. Jared Brisman (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

* = poster presentations

54

E6. Low-Permeability Zone Case StudiesPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Bonani Langan (Wood) and William Slack (FRx, Inc.)

* Achieving Favorable Substrate Distribution in Layered, Low-Permeability Aquifers. G. Colgan, S. Smith, J. Wilde, K. Bradley, A. Castor, J. Cox, T. Isakson, M. Reynolds, and A. Dziechciarz. Gary Colgan (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Biostimulation of a Vinyl Chloride Dissolved Plume at 35 m Deep in a Low-K Zone. R.C.M. Nobre, M.M.M. Nobre, and P.A. Pereira. Rosane Nobre (Federal University of Alagoas/Brazil)

* Chlorinated Solvents in Tight Clay/Weathered Rock Reduced 98% in 17 Months at a Superfund Site. K. Casper, A. Moore, R. Moore, and O. Miller. Ryan Moore (Regenesis/USA)

A Comparative Analysis at Low and High pH Activation of Sodium Persulfate in Fractured Granitic Gneiss Aquifer. J. Catanzarita, R. Srirangam, P. Tames, and W. Caldicott. Jeff Catanzarita (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/USA)

* Documentation of Remediation in the Source Zone in Low Permeable Soils Applying Amendment Technologies. B. Grosen, J.D. Jepsen, and T.H. Jorgensen. Bernt Grosen (COWI/Denmark)

DPT Jet Injection for Remediation of Low-Permeability Zones: Full-Scale Case Study Results from 3 Years of Treatment. C.M. Ross, D. Eberle, N.D. Durant, W.W. Slack, D. Baird, T.H. Jørgensen, E.B. Weeth, and P. Johansen. Chapman Ross (Geosyntec Consultants/USA)

Electrical Resistance Heating Thermal Remediation in a Difficult Aquifer Matrix. J. Byrd. Jennifer Byrd (ERM/USA)

* Full-Scale Enhanced Anaerobic Bioremediation of Two Low Permeability Source Areas. H. Fariello, M. Sausville, M. Harkness, T. Antonoff, and D. Foti. Heather Fariello (Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc./USA)

* In Situ Chemical Reduction of TCE Using Multiple Electron Donors in Low Permeability Subsurface Soils. V.S. Mankad, N.E. Smith, and D.P. Leigh. Vibhav Mankad (GHD/USA)

* Long-Term Backdiffusion from Low Permeability Zone with Horizontal ISCO Permeable Barriers. H. Huang, J.M. Fenstermacher, D. Kistner, and J. Moreskog. He Huang (AECOM/USA)

Long-Term Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Monitoring and Effectiveness in Two Adjoining Low-Permeability Soil Horizons. R. Plybon, M. Moes, D. Harbaugh, A. Ng, D. Sabba, and J. Argyres. Robert Plybon (EKI Environment & Water, Inc./USA)

* A New Process for the In Situ Remediation of Aged Low-K DNAPL Source Zone by Enhanced Mobilization and Bioremediation. M. Petrangeli Papini, M. Majone, L. Pierro, F. Arjmand, M. Sagliaschi, S. Sucato, E. Alesi, E. Bartsch, S. Rossetti, and B. Maturro. Marco Petrangeli Papini (University of Rome “La Sapienza”/Italy)

Performance of Combined Biorecirculation and ZVI Emplacement Remedy for Chlorinated Solvent Source Treatment. N.L Smith, N.T. Smith, D. Nguyen, K.J. Waage, K. Saller, R.A. Wymore, K.S. Sorenson, S. Garcia, I. Bowen, G. Guest, and C. Kaiser. Neil Smith (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

* PHYTO-INTEGRATED™ Remediation System to Address CCl

4 Contaminated Groundwater in a Low-Permeability Aquifer. E.G. Gatliff, P.J. Linton, R.S. Rought, D.J. Riddle, and P.R. Thomas. Edward Gatliff (Applied Natural Science, Inc./USA)

* Remediating 1,2-Dichloropropane Contaminated Groundwater in Low Permeability Media Using Micro-Scale ZVI and Organic Carbon Amendment. A. Leombruni, M. Mueller, and M. Sunseri. Mike Mueller (PeroxyChem, LLC/Austria)

Success Stories at Low-Permeability Sites: Field Demonstrations of Electrokinetic-Enhanced Amendment Delivery for In Situ Remediation. J. Wang, E. Cox, D. Reynolds, D. Gent, and M. Singletary. James Wang (Geosyntec Consultants/USA)

Using Multiple Amendments and Delivery Methods to Treat Extensive PCE Impacts in Low-Permeability Soil and Bedrock Matrices. T.A. Harp. Tom Harp (LT Environmental, Inc./USA)

E7. Cold Region Case StudiesPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Darrell Moore (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and Bruce Noble (AECOM)

* A 24-Day Study to Test Methods and Assess Variability of Indoor Air Trichloroethene Concentrations Arising from Vapor Intrusion. W.D. Calicchio, D.M. Groher, and K.A. Malinowski. Wolfgang Calicchio (Wood/USA)

* Deriving Cleanup Goals for Soil Gas for the Protection of Groundwater. G.P. Gordon and L.G. Cain. Glen Gordon (Wood/USA)

* = poster presentations

55

* How Influential Site Drainage Can Affect Groundwater Flow and Plume Migration. J. Oakeshott and S. MacKay. Jane Oakeshott (ERM/United Kingdom)

* Hydraulic Barrier and Physical Barrier Construction for River Protection. R.O. Coelho and V.V. Sewaybricker. Rodrigo Coelho (GEOKLOCK/Brazil)

* Impact of Land Development on the Stability of a TCE Plume. D. Taege and P. Roelen. Piper Roelen (Landau Associates, Inc./USA)

Improving Dissolved Organic Chemical Concentration Measurements at Groundwater/Surface-Water Interfaces Containing NAPL. M.J. Gefell, D. Vlassopoulos, M. Kanematsu, and D. Lipson. Michael Gefell (Anchor QEA, LLC/USA)

* Keeping the Balance: Understanding and Protecting Baseflow in a Brook Adjacent to a Pump-and-Treat Remedy. M.A. Apfelbaum, C.M. Rockwell, B.L. Gregory, and P.E. Nangeroni. Michael Apfelbaum (Woodard & Curran/USA)

Multiscale Geophysical, Geochemical, and Thermal Investigation of Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction in a Highly Regulated River System. T.C. Johnson, J.N. Thomle, J. Stegen, C. Strickland, and V. Vermeul. Tim Johnson (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory/USA)

New Approaches for Direct Measurement of Contaminated Groundwater Discharge to Receiving Surface Water. F. Cosme, A. Holloway, K.Ye, K. De Greene, S. Lamontagne, J. Stening, J. Tyler, B. Dietman, and S. Brouyere. Frederic Cosme (Golder Associates Pty Ltd/Australia)

* Numerical Modeling Simulation of the Impact of Source Controls on Site Recovery in Dead-End Tidal Waterbodies. S. Gbondo-Tugbawa, S. McDonald, C.C. Pranhu, K. Takagi, T. Hasegawa, N. Kim, S. Ertman, and R. Weissbard. Solomon Gbondo-Tugbawa (Louis Berger/USA)

* Using Two Mass Flux Methods to Evaluate Areas of TCE Discharge to a Creek. D. Taege, P. Roelen, and J. Ninteman. Piper Roelen (Landau Associates, Inc./USA)

E9. Landfill Redevelopment and ManagementPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Christopher Glenn (Langan Engineering) and Rubens Spina (GEOKLOCK)

Application of HPT/EC Tools for Assessment of the Distribution of Permeability in Excavation and Drawdown Target Area. V.V. Sewaybricker and R. Spina. Victor Vanin Sewaybricker (GEOKLOCK/Brazil)

* = poster presentations

* A Dynamic Three-Dimensional Conceptual Site Model for CRREL: Historical Overview and Environmental Issues at CRREL. R.R. Rustad, S.F. Calkin, and D. Moore. Rod Rustad (Wood/USA)

* HAPSITE® GC/MS as an Investigation Tool for Characterizing Trichloroethene in Groundwater. J. Besse, W.D. Calicchio, and K.A. Malinowski. Jack Besse (Wood/USA)

Monitoring of a Large Trichloroethene Soil Gas Plume: Prior to, during, and Post Soil Vapor Extraction Pilot Testing. R.R. Rustad, W. Calicchio, G. Gordon, S.F. Calkin, and D.M. Groher. Rod Rustad (Wood/USA)

* Optimizing Groundwater Contaminant Capture in a Variable, Semi-Confined Geologic Environment. R.R. Rustad, S.F. Calkin, and D.M. Groher. Rod Rustad (Wood/USA)

River Sub-Bottom Characterization of a Legacy Trichloroethene Release and Relationship to Bedrock Groundwater Contamination. S.F. Calkin, P.T. Thompson, R.R. Rustad, and K.J. Heim. Scott Calkin (Wood/USA)

A Room-by-Room Study of Trichloroethene Exposure Point Concentration Variation: TO-15 Summa versus HAPSITE® Data. A.R. Quintin, M.J. Murphy, and L.G. Cain. Amy Quintin (Wood/USA)

* Soil Vapor Extraction Pilot Test Effects on Sub-Slab Depressurization Influent TCE Concentrations. R.T. Belcher, W. Calicchio, G. Gordon, and D.M. Groher. Ryan Belcher (Wood/USA)

Trichloroethene-Contaminated Soil Gas as a Source of Groundwater Contamination in a Deep Vadose Zone Environment. G.P. Gordon, S.F. Calkin, D.A. Moore, and D.M. Groher. Glen Gordon (Wood/USA)

E8. Surface Water/Groundwater InteractionsPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Felicia Barnett (U.S. EPA) and Jennifer Segura (U.S. Navy)

Contaminant Mass Discharge in an Aquifer Influenced by an Estuary. P.C. Negrao, R.W. Cleary, and S. Pereira. Paulo Negrao (State University of Campinas - Unicamp/Brazil)

* Fluorescent Dyes Used for Characterization of the Interaction and Mixing between Groundwater Plumes and Surface Water. N. Larsson, G. Lilbaek, B.A. Hunner, A. Storgaard, F. Nilsson, A.G. Christensen, U. Winnberg, K. Forsberg, and T. Aley. Anders Christensen (NIRAS A/S/Denmark)

56

Case Study of the On-Site Remediation of a Former Industrial Landfill from the Chlorine Industry. M. Broquaire, P-Y. Klein, and J-D. Vilomet. Mathias Broquaire (Solvay/France)

* Dewatering a CCP Landfill with a Horizontal Well. M. Lubrecht and R. Baeten. Michael Lubrecht (Directed Technologies Drilling, Inc./USA)

* Hybrid Landfill Gas Mitigation System Implementation. O. Uppal, N. Najib, S. Abrams, H. Nichols, I. Khan, V. Yarina, and R. Simon. Omer Uppal (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

* In Situ Chemical Oxidation for Remediation of Chlorinated Ethanes in a Former Municipal Landfill. M.T. Becker, S. Sharma, and A. Patel. Mark Becker (AECOM Technical Services/USA)

Innovative Design Approach for Mitigating Landfill Gas: A Landfill Post-Closure Mixed-Use Development Case Study. O. Uppal, M. Ambrusch, N. Najib, A. Falabella, J. Ludlow, C. Glenn, S. Abrams, I. Khan, G. Corcoran, and M. Fredlund. Omer Uppal (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

Modifying an Existing Sub-Slab Methane Mitigation System at a Redeveloped Landfill Site after Years of Settlement. J. Schaettle, C. Glenn, and J.F. Ludlow. Jessica Schaettle (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services Inc./USA)

* Remediation Using In Situ Solidification/Stabilization in Brazil of a Contaminated Source at an Industrial Landfill with Various Reagents. I. Peter, T. Moran, and M. Crimi. Isabel Peter (Brasfond/Brazil)

* When Elegant Solutions Fail: Deep Geomembrane Barrier for Long-Term Containment at a Landfill. A. Wilson and E. Schwartz. Amy Wilson (TRC/USA)

E10. Radiological IssuesPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Melanie Kito (U.S. Navy) and Bruce Marvin (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.)

* Addressing Radiological Concerns and Awareness of Differences to Traditional Programs. K. Sykes, K. Smallwood, and N.M. Berliner. Nicholas M. Berliner (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Chitinous Biomass-Mediated Precipitation of Uranium: The Dual Role of Hydroxylammonium Acetate. C.S. Griggs and S.L. Larson. Chris S. Griggs (U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center/USA)

Field Test of Vapor-Phase Ammonia Injection for Vadose Zone Remediation of Uranium. M. Truex, C. Strickland, J. Szecsody, G. Chronister, and P. Baynes. Michael Truex (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory/USA)

* Implementing Field-Scale Remediation Technologies for Uranium and Tetrachloroethylene in Soil and Groundwater. C.S. Morie. Scott Morie (Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc./USA)

* Influence of Calcium Carbonate Chemistry on Inorganic Contaminant Natural Attenuation and Secondary Sources. N. Qafoku, A. Lawter, J. Szecsody, M. Snyder, and M. Truex. Michael Truex (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory/USA)

Site Characterization and Remedial Design for Surface Impoundments Containing Technologically-Enhanced, Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Material (TENORM). J. Wallace, P. Zawislanski, C. Jones, and T. Ikenberry. Jeff Wallace (Terraphase Engineering Inc./USA)

Understanding Uranium Plume Persistence Processes at a Former Uranium Mill Tailings Area through the Use of Laboratory and Field Methods. R.H. Johnson, P.W. Reimus, R. Bush, and W. Frazier. Raymond H. Johnson (Navarro Research and Engineering, Inc./USA)

* Uranium Plume Persistence at U.S. Department of Energy UMTRCA Sites. A. Ranalli, R.H. Johnson, and R. Bush. Anthony Ranalli (Navarro Research and Engineering, Inc./USA)

F1. Natural Source Zone DepletionPlatforms Monday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Parisa Jourabchi (Golder Associates, Ltd.) and Derek Tomlinson (GEI Consultants, Inc.)

* Assessing NSZD for Creosote DNAPLs. J. Smith, B. Koons, R. Holm, R. Sillan, S. Gaito, and G. Jeffries. Jonathon Smith (AECOM/USA)

Comparing Natural Source Zone Depletion in the Vadose and Saturated Zones at a Fuel Release Site. D. Mackay, C. Paradis, R. Schmidt, H. Zhang, T. Buscheck, and N. Sihota. Douglas Mackay (University of California, Davis/USA)

* A Comprehensive Mass Balance Approach to Quantify Subsurface Natural Losses and Optimize Remediation System Operation. J. Fitzgibbons and T. Palaia. Jeff Fitzgibbons (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Computational Methods for Transforming LNAPL Site Temperature Data to NSZD Rates. K. Karimi Askarani, J. Ham, and T. Sale. Kayvan Karimi Askarani (Colorado State University/USA)

* = poster presentations

57

* Development of a Protocol for Carbon Dioxide Efflux Measurements Using Dynamic Closed Chamberfor NSZD Estimates. P. Jourabchi, A. Wozney, I. Hers, and H. Hopkins. Parisa Jourabchi (Golder Associates, Ltd./Canada)

* Estimates of Hydrocarbon NAPL Depletion from Compositional Change over Time. G.E. DeVaull and I. Rhodes. George DeVaull (Shell Global Solutions/USA)

Hydrologic Controls on Losses of Individual Components of Crude Oil. B.A. Bekins, W.N. Herkelrath, M.J. Baedecker, R.P. Eganhouse, I.M. Cozzarelli, and G.-H.C. Ng. Barbara Bekins (U.S. Geological Survey/USA)

Integrating Theory and Practice to Better Understand and Apply NSZD at Field Sites. S. Garg, C.J. Newell, P.R. Kulkarni, and D.C. King. Sanjay Garg (Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc./USA)

Multi-Year Natural Source Zone Depletion Measurements at a Large Industrial Site. N. Sihota, B. McAlexander, M. Lyverse, and K.U. Mayer. Natasha Sihota (Chevron Energy Technology Company/USA)

Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD) Investigation at a Paved Former Service Station Site in Spain. R.E. Sweeney, G.T. Ririe, A. Sayas, M. Marti, B. Beuthe, and L. Barreales. Robert Sweeney (E&P Geochemistry/USA)

Natural Source Zone Depletion of Waste Oil Residuals and Other Constituents at a Superfund Mega Site. P.P. Brussock, H. Martin, T. Loper, J. Loper, and D. Tomlinson. Peter Brussock (The ELM Group, Inc./USA)

* Natural Source Zone Depletion Rates Based on Analysis of Empirical Soil-Gas Data. M.A. Lahvis. Matthew Lahvis (Shell Global Solutions/USA)

New Developments in Thermal Monitoring Methods for Continuous NSZD Measurement: Application at an LNAPL Site. P.R. Kulkarni, K.L. Walker, D.C. King, G.P. Marquardt, C.J. Newell, T. Sale, K.K. Askarani, H. Hopkins, M.W. Malander, L. Smalley, and J.H. Higinbotham. Poonam Kulkarni (GSI Environmental, Inc./USA)

NSZD State of the Practice. T. Sale. Tom Sale (Colorado State University/USA)

* The Potential for Natural Source Zone Depletion of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Tropical Environments. T. Simpkin, T. Palaia, M. Gatan, A. Lee, and J. Zimbron. Tom Simpkin (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Relationship between NSZD and Ambient Temperature, Precipitation, and Groundwater Elevation at a Former Petroleum Refinery. B. McAlexander and N. Sihota. Ben McAlexander (Trihydro Corporation/USA)

Temperature Effects on Petroleum NSZD Processes: Lessons from Coupled Heat Transfer and Heat Generation Modeling. J. Zimbron, J. DiMarzio, and G. Silco. Julio Zimbron (E-Flux/USA)

* Temporal and Spatial Variability in NSZD Rate Measurements. K. Piontek, T. Sale, K.K. Askarani, and E.D. Emerson. Keith Piontek (TRC Environmental Corporation/USA)

* Using Dynamic Flux Chambers to Estimate the Natural Attenuation Rates in the Subsurface at Contaminated Sites. R. Baciocchi, I. Verginelli, and R. Pecoraro. Renato Baciocchi (University of Rome Tor Vergata/Italy)

Panel Discussion—Tuesday, Track F

Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD):Treatment Train Engine or Caboose?

ModeratorDerek Tomlinson (GEI Consultants, Inc.)

PanelistsBarbara Bekins (USGS)

Justin Meredith (Tennessee DEC)Sanjay Garg (Shell Oil Company)

Natasha Sihota (Chevron Corporation)Thomas Sale (Colorado State University)

Julio Zimbron (E-Flux) Natural source zone depletion (NSZD) is a term used to describe the collective, naturally occurring processes of dissolution, volatilization, and biodegradation that result in mass losses of light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) petroleum hydrocarbon constituents from the subsurface. NSZD is coming to the forefront of decision making at LNAPL remediation sites because much higher source attenuation rates are now being measured due to increased understanding of the degradation pathways including direct LNAPL degradation via methanogenesis, and quantification of biodegradation rates of dissolved- and vapor-phases accounting for mass losses measured in the range of 300 to 7,700 gallons/acre/year. NSZD of LNAPL sources is occurring from point of release to the end (hence the ‘Engine’) within both porous and fractured media. NSZD is only called a remedy when we begin to monitor or quantify, which is very similar to the Natural Attenuation (NA) and Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) arc for groundwater. For petroleum releases, NSZD like NA is occurring once petroleum hydrocarbons are introduced into the subsurface, and it becomes a remedy when NSZD is monitored/quantified to address the remediation of the remaining residual and nuisance mobile LNAPL with time (hence the ‘Caboose’). Each panelist will provide a talk giving their thoughts on NSZD. A series of questions from the moderator for the panelists to answer will be part of the panel followed by an open microphone session for Q&A.

58

F2. In Situ Remediation of Petroleum HydrocarbonsPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Robert Elliott (Remediation Products, Inc.) and Sanjay Garg (Shell Global Solutions, Inc.)

* Application of Poly Remediation Technologies for Petroleum-Contaminated Sites. C.-K. Yen, C.-C. Kao, and C.-H. Cheng. Chen-Kai Yen (Sinotech Environmental Technology, Ltd./Taiwan)

* Benzene Degradation under Anaerobic Conditions: Using Treatability Studies and Molecular Tools to Provide Insights. S. Dworatzek, J. Webb, K. Bradshaw, F. Luo, N. Bawa, S. Guo, and E. Edwards. Sandra Dworatzek (SiREM/Canada)

* Biosparging in a Confined Aquifer Using Chimneys as Subsurface Bioreactors at a BTEX Site in Wyoming. J.D. Hartley, I. Sutton, and G. Ng. Jim Hartley (CH2M HILL/USA)

A Bioventing System Destroys Multimillions of Pounds of Petroleum Hydrocarbons: An Inquiry into the Mass Removal Mechanisms. V. Gamez Grijalva, T. Palaia, R. Frank, and R. Hinchee. Victor Gamez Grijalva (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Case Study: Low-Cost In Situ Remediation on Oil-Contaminated Soil. S. Svanstrom, J. Bergman, and S. Haller. Say Svanstrom (RGS Nordic AB/Sweden)

Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation at a Former Refinery Site due to Recycling of Aerosol Sulfate in the Groundwater Fluctuation Zone. R.E. Sweeney and G.T. Ririe. Robert Sweeney (E&P Geochemistry/USA)

Field Applications of Bioelectrochemical Technology for Treating Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminants. S. Jin, P.H. Fallgren, and Z.J. Ren. Song Jin (University of Wyoming/USA)

Heuristic Numerical Modeling Study of LNAPL Depletion under Natural Conditions. P. Jourabchi, I. Hers, A. Kirkman, K.U. Mayer, and J. Wilson. Parisa Jourabchi (Golder Associates, Ltd./Canada)

An Innovative Air Sparging Approach for Treatment of BTEX and VOCs. M. Ambrusch, S. Ciambruschini, O. Uppal, N. Najib, A. Quinn, and S. Abrams. Matthew Ambrusch (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services/USA)

* Microbial Recovery after Eutrophic Conditions during Biostimulation at Hydrocarbon-Impacted Sites. L.M. Moehlman, S.D. Siciliano, K. Bradshaw, and T.J. Carlson. Lisa Moehlman (University of Saskatchewan/Canada)

* Monitoring of Air Injection Remediation Systems Using Carbon Dioxide Efflux Measurements. T. Palaia, J. Fitzgibbons, D. Downey, R. Hinchee, and J. Zimbron. Tom Palaia (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Passive Hydrocarbon Remediation in a Foreshore Marine Environment. C. Boys, M. Lyverse, M. Sutherland, R. Magaw, M. Gill, R. Horwath, R. Kannappan, C. Ott, and J. Malick. Ram Kannappan (AECOM/USA)

* Permeable Reactive Pavement for Controlling the Transport of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene (BTEX) Contaminants. S. Huang and C. Liang. Shengyi Huang (National Chung Hsing University/Taiwan)

* Reclamation of a TPH-Impacted Site via LNAPL Recovery and ISCO Treatment: Case Field, Italy. C. Sandrone, A. Campi, F. Accorsi, and J. Mueller. Jim Mueller (Provectus Environmental Products, Inc./USA)

Remediation of Hydrocarbon-Contaminated Sites Using High Frequency Investigation/Sampling as Design Tool: Scandinavian Approach. G.G. Ceriani. Gabriele Giorgio Ceriani (Ejlskov A/S/Denmark)

Shoreline Remediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons Using an Oleophilic Biobarrier for Sheen Control on the Portland Harbor Superfund Site. S. Martin, K. Sheets, and J. Gentry. Jeff Gentry (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Soil Excavation and Bioremediation Using ORC® and Organic Fertilizer at a Tidally-Influenced Site. H. Benfield, C. Ferrell, R. Brenner, and S. Sadrpour. Heather Benfield (Tetra Tech, Inc./USA)

Thermal Modeling of Natural Source Zone Depletion and Temperature-Enhanced Biodegradation. I. Hers, P. Jourabchi, and H. Hopkins. Ian Hers (Golder Associates Ltd./Canada)

* Vacuum Driven In-Well Stripping and Recirculation, Comparative Evaluation of Two Pilot Studies. M. Pehlivan. Mehmet Pehlivan (Bays Environmental Remediation Management/USA)

F3. LNAPL Recovery/Remediation Technology TransitionsPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: David De Courcy Bower (ERM) and Harley Hopkins (Exxon Mobil Corporation)

* Application of a Horizontal Well for Optimized Light Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Recovery. A. Kerr and M. Poltorak. Nicole Longinotti (Stantec/USA)

* = poster presentations

59

Comparison of Laser-Induced Fluorescence Profiles following a Decade of LNAPL Recovery. C. Shen, P. Stumpf, R. Kannappan, J. Lentini, and S. Ganna. Peter Stumpf (Aecom/USA)

* Comparison of UVOST-CPT Profiling, LNAPL Transmissivity Testing, and Skimming Recovery and Implications for Plume Management. J. Studer, P. Parmentier, and N. Irish. James Studer (InfraSUR, LLC/USA)

Evaluating LNAPL Mobility and Transmissivity: A Route to Case Closure. S. Drummond and M.J. Zenker. Sharon Drummond (AECOM/USA)

LNAPL Recovery and Remedy Transitions: A Case Study at a Railyard Fueling Facility. J. Coughlin, A. Pennington, and D. Gabardi. Jeremy Coughlin (Canadian Pacific/USA)

LNAPL Transmissivity, NSZD and Incidental Bioventing Characterization for Evaluation of an LNAPL Recovery Program. B.L. McAlexander, K. Tomita, and S. Hunt. Ben McAlexander (Trihydro Corporation/USA)

* Optimization of Large-Scale LNAPL Recovery Operations Using a Graphical Analysis Tool. C. Shen, P. Stumpf, R. Kannappan, J. Lentini, and S. Ganna. Cynthia Shen (AECOM/USA)

Remedial Optimization: Transitioning from Physical LNAPL Removal to Enhanced Biological Degradation to Natural Depletion. T. Miller, B. Carreon, and Y. Chuang. Todd Miller (Kennedy/Jenks Consultants/USA)

Soil Vapor Extraction Using Horizontal Remediation Wells and Condensation Treatment to Recover Chlorinated and Petroleum NAPLs. V. Hosangadi, C. Winell, and P. Chang. Grant Geckeler (GEO/USA)

F4. Remediation of Heavy HydrocarbonsPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Matthew Alexander (Texas A&M University-Kingsville) and Schaun Smith (Chevron)

An Adaptation of Standard Mobility Tests for DNAPL. T. Andrews and L. Tseng. Trevre Roys Andrews (CH2M/USA)

Enhancement of Oily Sludge Biodegradation in Historic Refinery Wastewater Lagoons. M.L. Alexander, O. Ruvalcaba, and J. Walker. Matthew Alexander (Texas A&M University-Kingsville/USA)

* In Situ Smoldering Combustion (STAR): Challenges, Limitations, and Methods Developed to Maximize Remedial Performance. G.P. Grant, G. Scholes, D. Major, J.I. Gerhard, and J. Brown. Gavin Grant (Savron/Canada)

* Remediation of Fuel Oil No. 6 LNAPL at a Challenging Site in New Jersey. T. Geiger, W. Caldicott, P. Kakarla, M. Temple, K. O’Neal, S. Sacco, and D. Riddle. Tom Geiger (Geosyntec/USA)

STARx™ (Ex Situ Smoldering) for the Treatment of Contaminated Soils and Liquid Organic Wastes: Results from a Full-Scale Application. G. Scholes, G.P. Grant, D.W. Major, C. Murray, G.P. Sabadell, D. Thomas, and J. Dominguez. Grant Scholes (Savron/Canada)

* STARx™ (Ex Situ Smoldering): Field Pilot Test in Kaohsiung, Taiwan to Treat Base Oil-Impacted Soils. L. Kinsman, G. Scholes, G. Grant, D. Major, L. Lin, J. Fang, J. Chen, and D. Chiang. Laura Kinsman (Savron/Canada)

* STARx™ (Ex Situ Smoldering) for the Treatment of Contaminated Soils and Liquid Organic Wastes: Prototype Testing and Optimization. J.I. Gerhard, G. Scholes, R. Solinger, G.P. Grant, D. Major, C. Murray, G.P. Sabadell, D. Thomas, and J. Gabayet. Jason Gerhard (University of Western Ontario/Canada)

Surprising Efficacy of “Sipping” Heavy DNAPL without Disturbing Formations, Using Low-Flow, Above-Grade Piston Pumps. M. Bertane. Mark Bertane (Blackhawk Technology/USA)

F5. MGPsPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Michael Gefell (Anchor QEA, LLC) and Bernard Kueper (Queen’s University)

* Chemical Fixation of Contaminated Soil from a Gasworks Site. D. Alden, G. Birk, and R. Stewart. David Alden (Tersus Environmental, LLC/USA)

* Coal Tar Recovery from Former Manufactured Gas Plant Sites Using Single-Phase Microemulsion. P. Sharma, S.S. Palayangoda, and K. Kostarelos. Pushpesh Sharma (University of Houston/USA)

* Enhancing the EPRI Generic Work Plan to Assess Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Mobility in the Subsurface at Manufactured Gas Plant Sites. D.W. Tomlinson, J.M. Hawthorne, L.A. Reyenga, G.R. Brubaker, J.A. Clock, and D.V. Nakles. Derek Tomlinson (GEI Consultants, Inc./USA)

* = poster presentations

60

Field-Scale Evaluation of Aerobic Bio-Oxidation to Deplete Groundwater Contaminants from Coal Tar and Creosote. R.K. Sillan. Randall Sillan (AECOM/USA)

Full-Scale Treatment of Coal Tar Lagoons with In Situ Smoldering: Successful Field Stories and Lessons Learned. J.E. Vidumsky, M. McMaster, L. Jo, L. deVlaming, D. Liefl, and A. Sims. John Vidumsky (DuPont/USA)

* High-Resolution Mobile NAPL Interval Identification and Transmissivity Calculations for DNAPL. L. Reyenga, J.M. Hawthorne, and D. Tomlinson. Lisa Reyenga (GEI Consultants, Inc./USA)

In Situ Gasworks Remediation: Challenges and Innovations. W. Caldicott, P. Kakarla, M. Temple, T. Eilber, B. Kay, and T. O’Callaghan. Will Caldicott (In-Situ Oxidative Technologies [ISOTEC]/USA)

* In Situ Solidification in Glacial Till Stratigraphy. E. Beckwith and M. Ostrowski. Eleanor Beckwith (Brown and Caldwell/USA)

* ISS Treatability Study on MGP Pond Sludge. T.A. Jordan. Tommy Jordan (KEMRON Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

* Multiple In Situ Technology Pilot Tests for Gas Work DNAPL and LNAPL Groundwater Contamination. J. Bergman, H. Nord, and M. Sundesten. Jonny Bergman (RGS 90 Sverige AB/Sweden)

NAPL Migration and Plume Geometry at Former Manufactured Gas Plant Sites Controlled by the Depositional Environment of Site Stratigraphy. C.P. Plank, G. Mclinn, and R. Cramer. Colin Plank (Burns & McDonnell/USA)

Selection of In Situ Stabilization Target Areas for NAPL-Impacted Sediment Remediation. J. Gentry, A.J. Salter-Blanc, J. Hess, and C.D. Tsiamis. Jeff Gentry (CH2M HILL/USA)

Thermal Remediation of Creosote-Impacted Sand: Treatability Testing during Heating and Post-Heating Dissolution. B.N. Hicknell, K.G. Mumford, and B.H. Kueper. Kevin G. Mumford (Queen’s University/Canada)

* Treatment of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Groundwater from a Former MGP Site to the Parts per Trillion Level for Discharge into Lake Superior. M.R. Schowengerdt, R. Onderko, B. Symons, B. Hanks, and B. Bell. Matthew Schowengerdt (Foth Infrastructure and Environment/USA)

F6. TPH Risk Assessment and MetabolitesPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Robert Scofield (GSI Environmental, Inc.) and Dawn A. Zemo (Zemo & Associates)

* An Alternative Hypothesis of the Nature of Dissolved Organic Carbon in Groundwater at Petroleum Release Sites. K. O’Reilly, S. Ahn, A. Tiwary, D. Zemo, R. Mohler, R. Magaw, and C. Espino Devine. Kirk O’Reilly (Exponent, Inc./USA)

* Approaches to Evaluate Ecological Risk from Polar Petroleum Degradation Metabolites in Groundwater at Mature Petroleum Sites. P. Zawislanski, A. Chakrabarti, and W.L. Carson. Peter Zawislanski (Terraphase Engineering Inc./USA)

* Composition of Extractable Organics in Groundwater at Biodegrading Crude Oil Release Sites. R. Mohler, C. Espino Devine, R. Magaw, N. Sihota, K. O’Reilly, S. Ahn, A. Tiwary, and D. Zemo. Rachel E. Mohler (Chevron Energy Technology Company/USA)

* Current State of Cleanup Levels and Approaches for Petroleum-Contaminated Sites. M. Pattanayek, R.Thun, and R. Scofield. Mala Pattanayek (Integral Consulting Inc./USA)

An Empirical Ecological Risk Assessment at a Mature Bay Margin Petroleum Site Focused on Polar Degradation Metabolites. A. Chakrabarti, P. Zawislanski, W.L. Carson, and J. Cotsifas. Arnab Chakrabarti (Terraphase Engineering/USA)

Insight into the Composition and Structure of Petroleum Metabolites Not Identified by Standard Methods of Analysis. D.C. Podgorski, P. Zito, D.F. Smith, X. Cao, K. Schmidt-Rohr, S. Wagner, A. Stubbins, J.T. McGuire, D. Martinovic-Weigelt, G.R. Aiken, I.M. Cozzarelli, R.G.M. Spencer, and B.A. Bekins. David C. Podgorski (University of New Orleans/USA)

Lifecycle of Extractable Organics in Groundwater at Biodegrading Fuel Release Sites. D. Zemo, K. O’Reilly, S. Ahn, A. Tiwary, R. Mohler, R. Magaw, and C. Espino Devine. Dawn A. Zemo (Zemo & Associates/USA)

* Petroleum Metabolites: Friends or Foes? U. Hellmann-Blumberg and R. Steenson. Uta Hellmann-Blumberg (CalEPA Department of Toxic Substances Control/USA)

Potential Human and Aquatic Toxicity of Petroleum Biodegradation Metabolites in Groundwater at Fuel Release Sites. R. Magaw, R. Mohler, C. Espino Devine, A. Tiwary, K. O’Reilly, S. Ahn, and D. Zemo. Renae Magaw (Chevron/USA)

* = poster presentations

61

Regulatory Challenges Posed by Petroleum Metabolites in Groundwater. R. Steenson, D. Elias, and U. Hellmann-Blumberg. Ross Steenson (CalEPA Regional Water Quality Control Board/USA)

State of the Practice: Risk Assessment and Management of Metabolites and Degradation Products from Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons. R. Scofield and T. Hoang. Robert Scofield (GSI Environmental, Inc./USA)

* Toxicity Assessment of Groundwater Contaminated by Petroleum Hydrocarbons at a Well-Characterized, Aged, Crude-Oil Release Site. D. Martinovic-Weigelt, J.T. McGuire, H.N. Link, I.M. Cozzarelli, and B.A. Bekins. Isabelle Cozzarelli (US Geologic Survey/USA)

* Update on ITRC’s Guidance on TPH Risk Evaluation at Petroleum-Contaminated Sites. T. Booze, R. Thun, and M. Kwiecinski. Roy Thun (GHD/USA)

F7. Environmental Considerations for Hydraulic Fracturing/Shale Gas ProductionPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Isabelle Cozzarelli (US Geologic Survey) and Doug Spicuzza (Woodard & Curran)

Alarming Differences in Commercial Data: Two Studies Illustrating the Challenges in Using Methane Data for Regulatory Reporting. D. Gratson, R. Vitale, S. Brower, and L. Work. David Gratson (Environmental Standards, Inc./USA)

* Assessing Engineering Risk from Unconventional Oil and Gas Wells. D.J. Soeder. Daniel J. Soeder (South Dakota School of Mines & Technology/USA)

* Challenges in the Measurement of Dissolved Gases in Water Samples from Shale Plays. K. Bagawandoss. Kesavalu Bagawandoss (TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc./USA)

* Diagnosis of Wellbore Integrity Defects with Sustained Casing Pressure Testing: Environmental Implications for Shale Gas Well Life Cycle. J.R. Sminchak and M. Place. Joel R. Sminchak (Battelle/USA)

Geochemical and Microbiological Indicators of Oil and Gas Wastewater Releases. I.M. Cozzarelli, D.M. Akob, K.J. Skalak, A.C. Mumford, W.H. Orem, K.B. Haase, M.A. Engle, and D.B. Kent. Isabelle Cozzarelli (US Geologic Survey/USA)

* Improving Dissolved Hydrocarbon Gas Analysis in Water. M.L. Bruce. Mark Bruce (TestAmerica/USA)

New API Industry Standards for Shale Development. G. Benge, D. Miller, S. Meadows, and R. Goodman. Glen Benge (Benge Consulting/USA)

A Summary of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Multi-Year Study of the Contamination Risks to Drinking Water from Hydraulic Fracturing. S. Dunn-Norman, W. Hufford, and S. Almond. Walter Hufford (REPSOL/USA)

F8. Managing/Remediating Petroleum Impacts at Fractured Bedrock SitesPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Duane Guilfoil (AST Environmental, Inc.) and Ryan Wymore (CDM Smith, Inc.)

Can Soil Vapor Extraction be Effective in LNAPL-Impacted Fractured Bedrock Environments? Lessons from Selected Case Studies. S.D. Mohr and E. Soumillion. Samuel Mohr (Environmental Resources Management/South Africa)

Characterization and In Situ Remediation in a Complex Fracture-Flow Regime. D.N. Cantrell, W.B. Brab, R.J. Huchinson, and J.G. Wingfield. Doug Cantrell (State of Tennessee/USA)

* Compartmentalized Approach to Bedrock and Overburden Remediation at a Legacy Petroleum Site. B. Morrow and N. Thacker. Brandt Morrow (AECOM/USA)

High-Resolution Characterization of an Aged Toluene Source Zone and Plume in a Dolostone Aquifer. B.L. Parker, J. Fernandes, S.W. Chapman, C. Maldaner, P. Wanner, K. Dunfield, R. Aravena, E. Haack, and D. Tsao. Beth L. Parker (University of Guelph/Canada)

* In Situ Injections for Remediation of a Former Gas Station. T. Sorrells and M. Critchley. Tree Sorrells (Alpine Remediation, Inc./USA)

Pilot Testing of Multi-Phase Extraction Technology for Full-Scale Remediation of a High-Concentration MTBE Source Area. M. Poltorak and D. Collins. Matthew R. Poltorak (Stantec Consulting Services Inc./USA)

Pilot-Scale ISCO Remediation Using Base-Activated Persulfate in a Fractured Dolostone Aquifer Contaminated by Mid-Distillate LNAPL. J. Halstead and J. Leu. John Halstead (Parsons Canada Ltd./Canada)

* Quantification of LNAPL Transmissivity in Fractured Porous Media. L. Reyenga, J.M. Hawthorne, A. Elder, D.M. Walker, H. Hopkins, and M. Malander. Lisa Reyenga (GEI Consultants, Inc./USA)

* = poster presentations

62

G1. Vapor Intrusion Risk Assessment and Site ManagementPlatforms Monday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Loren Lund (CH2M) and David Tsao (BP Corporation North America, Inc.)

* Applications of the Navy Quantitative Decision Framework at Military Buildings. C. Holton, L. Lund, C. Lutes, and R. MacLure. Chase Holton (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Carbon Dioxide Vapor Intrusion of Landfill Gas to Parcel Houses. K.M. Kristensen, A.G. Christensen, and M. Sonne. Katrine Moes Kristensen (NIRAS A/S/Denmark)

Developing a Quantitative Decision Framework for Residential Vapor Intrusion Evaluations. C. Lutes, L. Lund, K. Hallberg, C. Holton, D. Caldwell, and E. Corl. Loren Lund (CH2M/USA)

* Evaluating Vapor Intrusion Risk and Deciding When Risk Management is Recommended: A Standardized Approach for California Cleanup Sites. N. Fry, R. Steenson, C. Prowell, C. Sorrentino, D. Gallagher, B. Renzi, K. Kramer, and S. McMasters. Nicole Fry (San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board/USA)

* Hydrocarbon Background Levels in Denmark: Indoor and Outdoor Air. P. Loll, P. Novrup, and B. Hvidberg. Per Loll (DMR A/S/Denmark)

* Modeling of Source to Building Exclusion Distances at Petroleum-Contaminated Sites. I. Verginelli and R. Baciocchi. Iason Verginelli (University of Rome Tor Vergata/Italy)

* The New Subsurface Intrusion Pathway in the CERCLA Hazard Ranking System (HRS): Impacts on Site Management Strategies. C. Holton, L. Lund, and C. Lutes. Chase Holton (CH2M HILL/USA)

Quantifiable Lines of Evidence for Chemical Vapor Intrusion. C. Holton, H. Schuver, C. Lutes, J. Kurtz, and R. Truesdale. Henry Schuver (U.S. EPA/USA)

* A Review of Current TCE Short-Term Indoor Air Standards. L.J. Trozzolo. Laura J. Trozzolo (TRC/USA)

* Summary of State Approaches to Vapor Intrusion: 2018 Update. B. Eklund, L. Beckley, and R. Rago. Bart Eklund (AECOM/USA)

Supporting Stakeholders through Vapor Intrusion Response Actions in a Large Active Military Manufacturing Building. K.J. Campbell, T.N. Creamer, and D. Caldwell. Karen J. Campbell (Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southeast/USA)

* Trichloroethylene (TCE) Emerging Issues and Vapor Intrusion Rapid Action. J. Lowe, L. Lund, and C. Lutes. Loren Lund (CH2M/USA)

Vapor Intrusion at Former Manufactured Gas Plants: Do the Petroleum Hydrocarbon Site Exclusion Criteria Apply? A.J. Christensen and D.Y. Marquez. Aaron Christensen (Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc./USA)

G2. Vapor Intrusion Mitigation and EffectivenessPlatforms Monday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Pamela Chang (Battelle) and Thomas Szocinski (Land Science)

Automated Continuous Vapor Intrusion Monitoring and Response for Evaluating Mitigation and Remediation Effectiveness. M. Kram, B. Hartman, and C. Frescura. Mark Kram (Groundswell Technologies, Inc./USA)

* Building Survey, Indoor Source Identification, and Vapor Mitigation Lessons Learned at a Superfund Site. M. Patil, J.D. Graber, and D.C. Shipman. Mukta Patil (Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

* Challenges in Design and Operation of a Sub-Slab Depressurization System at an Occupied, 150-Year Old Former Mill Building. L.J. Campe, P. Nangeroni, R. McGrath, A. Roche, and B. Aigler. Peter Nangeroni (Woodard & Curran/USA)

Cyclical SVE for VI Mitigation of High-Strength Soil Gas VOCs at an Active Military Building, Naval Air Station North Island. V. Hosangadi, R. Mennis, P.L. Chang, and M. Pound. Michael Pound (U.S. Navy/USA)

* From Vapor Intrusion to Mitigation: A Status Review of the Current Practice. M. Ambrusch, S. Ciambruschini, B. Blum, O. Uppal, N. Najib, A. Falabella, and S. Abrams. Matthew Ambrusch (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services/USA)

* In Flux: A Case Study of Transition from Active to Passive Sub-Slab Depressurization Systems for Vapor Intrusion Sites. L. Campe and P. Nangeroni. Peter Nangeroni (Woodard & Curran/USA)

* = poster presentations

63

Mitigation of PCE-Impacted Soil beneath Former Dry Cleaner: Full-Scale Design and Mitigation Based on Sub-Slab Vapor Mitigation Pilot Test Data. R.J. Roth and A.J. Sufulko. Robert Roth (Terracon/USA)

* Mitigation of Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Using Low-Flow Air Injection. P. Michalski and S. Thompson. Paul Michalski (212 Environmental Consulting, LLC/USA)

Optimizing VI Mitigation Design and Performance: A Case Study. M. Radford, L. Lund, K. Hallberg. D. Cleland, and B. Beck. Maggie Radford (CH2M/USA)

* Performance of SVE Systems in Preventing VI: Multisite Comparison. K. Hallberg, C. Lutes, J. Minchak, R. Truesdale, B. Schumacher, J. Zimmerman, R. Connell, B. Stewart, J. De Loera, and J. Narusawa. Keri E. Hallberg (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Strategy Used to Avoid Design and Construction of Active Methane Mitigation Systems. M. Patil, S. Reinis, and J. Ludlow. Mukta Patil (Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

* Strategy Used to Distinguish between Potential Vapor Intrusion, Indoor Sources, or Building Systems Malfunction. S. Reinis, H. Farr, J. Schaettle, and J.F. Ludlow. Sigrida Reinis (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services/USA)

Successful Rapid Response Mitigation of a High-Strength Vapor Plume Underneath a Large, Active Navy Building. M. Pound, L. Goode, N. Durant, P. Chang, and V. Hosangadi. Lisa Goode (Geosyntec Consultants Inc./USA)

* Trichloroethylene Removal from an Active Cooling System at the Main Laboratory Building Located at Cold Regions Research Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, New Hampshire. N. Schofield, M. Oliva, and M. Cicalese. Neil Schofield (Sovereign Consulting Inc/USA)

* Vapor Intrusion and Air Cleaners: A Review of Field Performance Data: Application Selection Methods and Research Needs. K. Hallberg, C. Lutes, R. Truesdale, K. Owen, and B. Schumacher. Keri E. Hallberg (CH2M HILL/USA)

* A Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Site’s Follies and Lessons Learned. J.R. Dickson and C.F. Winkeljohn. James Dickson (CTI and Associates, Inc./USA)

* Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Using HVAC System Engineering Controls: Performance and Reliability Demonstration. D. Shea and B. Green. David Shea (Sanborn, Head & Associates, Inc./USA)

* Variable Slot Spacing in Vapor Collection Piping for Sub-Slab Vapor Mitigation Systems to Affect Equal Distribution of Sub-Slab Vacuum and Zone of Influence Vapor Removal. R.J. Roth and A.J. Sufulko. Robert Roth (Terracon/USA)

* Vertical Shaft Excavation to Remove Contaminated Soil with Passive Vent Tube Backfill Completion. F.W. Blickle and T. Kinney. Frederick Blickle (GHD/USA)

G3. Vapor Intrusion Preferential PathwaysPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Thomas McHugh (GSI Environmental, Inc.) and Michael Meyer (Battelle)

Analysis of TCE Vapor Distribution in Utility Corridors above a Dissolved Plume and Spatial Correlation with Residential Vapor Intrusion Impacts. Y. Guo, P. Dahlen, and P.C. Johnson. Yuanming Guo (Arizona State University/USA)

The Autobahn of Vapor Intrusion Migration: Pathway Evaluation from a Sole Source-Impacted Subsurface Sewer. A.P. Friedrich and A. Wallace. Aaron Friedrich (ERM/USA)

Flow Dynamics in Sewer Systems and Potentials on VI Preferential Pathways. T.V. Bote, B.N. Hoffmark, L. Nissen, K.B. Mortensen, K.R. Thygesen, H. Nielsen, K.D. Raun, and S.R. Pedersen. Tage Bote (COWI A/S/Denmark)

* Geospatial Screening Method to Identify Sewer Gas Inhalation Exposure Risks near Hazardous Waste Sites. E.J. Willett and K.G. Pennell. Evan Willett (University of Kentucky/USA)

* Indoor Air Problems Caused by Chlorinated Solvents Spreading through Public Sewer Systems. K.B. Nielsen and K. Rüegg. Karin Birn Nielsen (Central Denmark Region/Denmark)

* New Insights Into Exposure through Preferential Pathway Vapor Migration. M. Hamilton, C. McFall, and G. Randall. Megan Hamilton (EnviroForensics, LLC/USA)

Prevalence and Extent of cVOC Contamination in Sanitary Sewers due to Groundwater Contamination in the San Francisco Bay Area. B. Richman, K. Pennell, M. Armen, G. Skulason, A. Vitouchkine, C.R. Viteri, and A.E. Miller. Anthony Miller (Entanglement Technologies, Inc./USA)

* Sewer Preferential Pathway Vapor Intrusion: Fake News or the New Normal? L. Beckley and T. McHugh. Lila Beckley (GSI Environmental, Inc./USA)

* = poster presentations

64

Sewer Ventilation as a VI Mitigation Alternative: Case Studies. K. Hallberg, L. Lund, J. High, Q. Bingham, D. Cleland, and M. Roginske. Keri E. Hallberg (CH2M HILL/USA)

Sewers as a Preferential VI Pathway: Dynamic Measurements and Quantitative Risk Assessments. P. Loll, P. Larsen, C. Larsen, H. Nielsen, K.D. Raun, K.R. Thygesen, and K.B. Mortensen. Per Loll (DMR A/S/Denmark)

* Using Real-Time Data to Evaluate the Sewer Gas to Indoor Air Pathway. A.P. Friedrich and A. Wallace. Aaron Friedrich (ERM/USA)

* Vapor Transport through Sewer Systems: Mechanisms and Variables. M. Roghani and K.G. Pennell. Mohammadyousef Roghani (University of Kentucky/USA)

G4. Advances in Vapor Intrusion InvestigationsPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Donna Caldwell (U.S. Navy) and Nadine Weinberg (ERM)

* Approaches to Consider the Influence of Building Infiltration and Ventilation on Vapor Intrusion Exposure Risks. E. Shirazi and K.G. Pennell. Elham Shirazi (University of Kentucky/USA)

* Automated Continuous Real-Time Vapor Intrusion Monitoring and Response: Preventing Acute Exposures. M. Kram, B. Hartman, and C. Frescura. Mark Kram (Groundswell Technologies, Inc./USA)

Compound-Specific Isotope Analysis Used to Identify the Origin of VOCs in the Indoor Environment: Internal Sources versus Subsurface Contamination. M. Wahid, I. Damgaard, I.H. Kerrn-Jespersen, N. Tuxen, T.H. Larsen, and T.S. Jepsen. Trine Skov Jepsen (Orbicon/Denmark)

Continuous Indoor Air Sampling to Understand Variable Concentrations of Trichloroethene in a Complex Industrial Facility. P. Fahey, C.F. Silver, and B. Hartman. Pamela O’Reilly Fahey (CDM Smith/USA)

Effects of Remediation and Background Indoor Air Sources on Indoor Air in a Commercial Facility. N.M. Weinberg, E. Hoffman, and J. Campbell. Nadine Weinberg (ERM/USA)

* Evaluation of Soil Vapor Extraction Data to Characterize Mass Flux to the Vapor Intrusion Boundary. L. Stewart, R.S. Truesdale, C. Lutes, B. Schumacher, and J. Zimmerman. Lloyd Stewart (Praxis Environmental Technologies, Inc./USA)

A Field Study to Validate a Newly Developed Flow Controller Used to Monitor Vapor Intrusion. B.D. Stone, A. Rossner, M. Crimi, M. Carroll, and J. Miceli. Benjamin David Stone (Clarkson University/USA)

* Measuring Trace Level VOCs in High Concentration Soil Gas Matrices: A New Tool to Meet Risk-Based Screening Levels. H.C. Hayes and D. Benton. Heidi Hayes (Eurofins Air Toxics/USA)

* Multiple Lines of Evidence, Including CSIA, to Differentiate an Indoor Source from Vapor Intrusion. S. Dergham, C. Serlin, D. Rowe, and B. Hartman. Safaa Dergham (Ramboll Environ Corporation/USA)

Optimizing Vapor Intrusion Response Actions in a Large Active Military Manufacturing Building. T.N. Creamer, K.J. Campbell, and D. Caldwell. Todd Creamer (Geosyntec Consultants/USA)

Tree Sampling as a Screening Tool for Vapor Intrusion Potential to Protect Human Health. J.L. Wilson, M.A. Limmer, V.A. Samaranayake, J.G. Schumacher, and J.G. Burken. Jordan Wilson (U.S. Geological Survey and Missouri University of Science and Technology/USA)

* Using Field Observations to Determine Equilibration Times and Purge Volume Removal for Soil Vapor Sampling. A.K. Haar and S.E. Jones. Angela K. Haar (Jones Environmental, Inc./USA)

* Using Real-Time Analytical Methods and Passive Air Samplers to Evaluate Indoor Air Sources. C.E. Regan, A.P. Friedrich, and J.T. Hancock. Catherine Regan (ERM/USA)

* Vapor Intrusion Snapshot of Updates. T.R. Walker and D. Caldwell. Teresie Walker (NAVFAV Atlantic/USA)

G5. Advances in Technology TransferPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Carmen Lebron (Consulting Engineer) and Andrea Leeson (SERDP/ESTCP)

ENVIRO.wiki: Your Environmental Information Gateway. A. Stenger and R.C. Borden. Allison Stenger (Draper Aden Associates/USA)

Evaluating Tech Transfer Challenges and Successes: The XRF Case Study. J. Costanza, D. Crumbling, L. Fiedler, E. Gilbert, and C. Pachon. Carlos Pachon (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/USA)

Improving the Effectiveness of Technology Transfer Programs: Lessons Learned from SERDP/ESTCP Webinar Program. R.A. Deeb, J. Nyman, and A. Leeson. Rula Anselmo Deeb (Geosyntec Consultants/USA)

* = poster presentations

65

* SERDP and ESTCP’s Effective Diversified Informational Tools Used to Reach Out to DoD Remedial Program Managers. C.A. Lebron, A. Leeson, H. Stroo, and M. Xavier. Carmen Lebron (Consulting Engineer/USA)

Technology Transfer for Molecular Biological Tools (MBTs) and their Role in Stakeholder Communications. D. Taggart, A. Biernacki, and B.R. Baldwin. Dora Taggart (Microbial Insights, Inc./US

* = poster presentations

Lunch & Learn—Wednesday, Track G

ITRC Lunch & Learn

Patricia Reyes (ITRC Director) Aiyana Bodi (ITRC Project Associate)Claudio Sorrentino (California EPA)

Erik Gessert (Colorado DLE Division of Oil and Public Safety)Ginny Yingling (Minnesota Department of Health)

Bob Mueller (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection)

Carl Spreng (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment)

John Price III (Washington Department of Ecology)Michael B. Smith

(Vermont Department of Environmental Protection) Naji Akladiss

(Maine Department of Environmental Protection)Harold Templin

(Indiana Department of Environmental Management)

Panel Discussion—Wednesday, Track G

Accelerating the Use of Innovative Technologies: What is the Role of Pilot Testing, Demonstration, Verification, and Certification?

ModeratorAmy Dindal (Battelle)

PanelistsRichard Stewart (Ziltek)

Jim Cummings (U.S. EPA)John Neate (VerifiGlobal)

There are a variety of opportunities for developers to evaluate the performance of their technologies. The purpose of this panel is to discuss various options for evaluating the performance of new and emerging technologies, along with the need to develop clear metrics and/or lines of evidence for remedy success. The panel will share applicable best practices from the environmental restoration field, as well as from other industries in testing, verifying, and certifying new technologies. Approaches include self-funded or client-funded pilot tests, end user-driven/funded demonstrations (e.g., ESTCP), reviews by credible third-parties (e.g., US EPA Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program), evaluation following international standards (e.g., ISO 14034:2016 which specifies principles, procedures and requirements for ETV), or certification for compliance or approval for use. Why and how a technology developer utilizes one or more of the described approaches depends upon the technology maturation level, the availability/applicability of standards, fields of use, available funding, benefits/return on investment to the prospective users, and most critically, stakeholder information needs. The panel will define and discuss the different types of evaluations and key lines of evidence for evaluating technology performance. The role that these approaches may play in accelerating the use of innovative technologies will be discussed.

Innovative Technology Transfer Approach for a Background Soil Study in Puerto Rico. J. Aviles, D. Cuevas, D. Cutt, M. Maddaloni, K. Mishkin, C. Nace, R. Seda, and R. Wilkin. Diana Cutt (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/USA)

Key Factors in the Successful Commercialization of Three High-Resolution Site Characterization (HRSC) Technologies. M. Einarson. Murray Einarson (Haley & Aldrich, Inc./USA)

* The National Network of Danish Test Sites for Development of Environmental Technology. H. Milter, N.D. Overheu, and S.R. Petersen. Hasse Milter (Region Zealand/Denmark)

NAVFAC’s Technology Transfer and Outreach Programs for Environmental Restoration: Sharing Technology Trends and Leveraging Feedback. T. Meyers, W. Condit, K. Neil, and D.K. Nair. Tara Meyers (U.S. Navy/USA)

The ITRC Lunch & Learn will include presentations from ITRC staff and technical teams. The Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC) is a state-led coalition working with the federal government, private sector, and public stakeholders to reduce barriers to the use of innovative air, water, waste, and remedial environmental technologies and practices. ITRC produces guidance documents and trainings that broaden and deepen technical knowledge, all while protecting human health and the environment. With over 900 members from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, ITRC is imperative for implementing national consensus regarding environmental technologies and approaches.

66

G6. Stakeholder Success Stories and Risk CommunicationPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Amy Dindal (Battelle) and Patricia Reyes (Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council/ECOS)

Communicating Risk to Achieve Successful Environmental Restoration: Reshaping LNAPL Management Policies by Better Defining Risk. R. Chapman and E. Gessert. Erik Gessert (Colorado Department of Labor and Employment/USA)

Doing a Good Job Is Not Enough: You Need to Let People Know. C. Sorrentino and V.M. Hanley. Claudio Sorrentino (California Department of Toxic Substances Control/USA)

Implementing Groundwater Strategy: Visualizing and Communicating the Priorities through GIS. H. Sckerl and B. Bisgaard. Halfdan Sckerl (Central Denmark Region/Denmark)

A National PFAS Investigation Program in Australia: Sense-Making and Risk Communication Challenges. M. Bruce, L. McLeod, and A. Mitchell. Andrew Mitchell (Department of Defence/Australia)

* Proactive Stakeholder Engagement to Support Decision Making and Path forward in the Field of Site Remediation: A Case Study. F. Beaudoin, S. Hains, F. Gauthier, and C. David. Francois Beaudoin (Golder Associates/Canada)

* Risk Communication in the Execution of an Environmental Recovery Project in a Residential Area with Historical Conflicts of Interest. V.V. Sewaybricker and R.O. Coelho. Victor Vanin Sewaybricker (GEOKLOCK/Brazil)

State-Level Risk Communication of Waterborne Contaminants: Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Harmful Algal Blooms. A.L. Bodi and S.G. Longsworth. Aiyana Bodi (Environmental Council of the States/USA)

* Turning Contaminated Properties into Profit: A Regulatory Perspective. A.N. Amini. A. Nick Amini (California Regional Water Quality Control Board/USA)

G7. Decision Analysis Tools for Environmental Restoration ApplicationsPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Paul Favara (CH2M HILL) and David Reynolds (Geosyntec Consultants)

Cognitive Tool to Support Remediation Technology Selection. M. Paquet. Marc Paquet (WikiNet/Canada)

* Design Optimization of Environmental Contamination Projects Using Massively Parallel Simulation and Optimization Solution Methods. L.M. Deschaine. Larry Deschaine (HydroGeoLogic, Inc./USA)

* An Interactive Training System for Reduction in Cost and Complexity of Remediation and Long-Term Management of Contaminated Sites. D. Reynolds, S. Mancini, J. Rosen, M. Kavanaugh, B. Kueper, K. Mumford, J. Kaupp, and S. Bryck. David Reynolds (Geosyntec Consultants/Canada)

* Remediation of DNAPL-Impacted Sites Using Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation: Experience-Based Remediation Using Virtual Data Set. B.H. Kueper, K.G. Mumford, S. Bryck, D.A. Reynolds, S. Mancini, D. Major, and M.C. Kavanaugh. Bernard Kueper (Queen’s University/Canada)

A Stochastic Modeling Approach to Evaluate the Value of Additional Information for Site Characterization and Remediation. J.B.H. Rayner, C. Crea, D.A. Reynolds, and M.C. Kavanaugh. James Rayner (Geosyntec Consultants/Canada)

A Survey of Decision Support Tools for Comparing Cleanup Options and Increasing Decision-Making Confidence. P.J. Favara. Paul Favara (CH2M HILL/USA)

Virtual Site Investigation: Using Perfect Information to Evaluate Strategies for Conceptual Site Model Development at DNAPL Sites. K.G. Mumford, B.H. Kueper, S. Bryck, D.A. Reynolds, D.W. Major, S. Mancini, M.C. Kavanaugh, and P.K. Kitanidis. Kevin G. Mumford (Queen’s University/Canada)

* = poster presentations

67

G8. Precipitation and Stabilization of MetalsPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Roger L. Olsen (CDM Smith) and Matt Yovich (Woodard & Curran)

* Capping of Marine Sediments with Valuable Industrial Byproducts: Evaluation of Inorganic Pollutants Immobilization. M. Taneez, C. Hurel, and P. Francour. Mehwish Taneez (International Islamic University/Pakistan)

First Ever Heavy Metal Stabilization Project in Korea. H. Shan, J. Lee, J. Lee, S. Kim, H. Kim, J. Seo, W. Joo, and W. Kang. Huifeng Shan (PeroxyChem, LLC/China)

Geochemical Stabilization of Nickel in Groundwater: Full-Scale Implementation and Adaptive Design. E. Williams-Carter, M. McCaughey, P. Jin, L. Luo, and J. McLaughlin. Erika L. Williams Carter (ARCADIS U.S., Inc./USA)

* In Situ Remediation of a Barium-Contaminated Site with Drainage Trenches and Effluent Recirculation. M.M.M. Nobre, R.C.M. Nobre, and P.A. Pereira. Manoel Nobre (Maia Nobre Engenharia/Brazil)

* Managing Leachable Arsenic for Sustainable On-Site Retention. J. Fox and R. Stewart. Richard Stewart (Ziltek Pty., Ltd./Australia)

Precipitating Success: A Solution to Heavy Metals in Groundwater. J. McDonough, R. Royer, G. Sitomer, and R. Murphy. Jeff McDonough (ARCADIS/USA)

Removal of Selenium from Refinery Wastewater Using Sulfur-Modified Iron (SMI). C.G. Schreier and P.F. Santina. Cindy Schreier (PRIMA Environmental, Inc./USA)

* Selenium Attenuation via Naturally-Induced Reductive Precipitation in the Southeast Idaho Phosphate Patch. M.B. Hay, G. Leone, D. Silverman, and B. Wilking. Michael Hay (Arcadis U.S., Inc./USA)

Sustainable In Situ Remediation Approach for Arsenic-Impacted Groundwater at a Superfund Site in New Jersey. T. North, L. Sehayek, R. Wilkin, H. Young, and D. Cutt. Tricia North (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/USA)

* The Transport and Fate of Arsenic-Loaded Nano Zero-Valent Iron in Subsurface Systems under Various Geochemical Conditions. I.M.C. Lo, W. Zhang, Z. Yu, D. Lin, and L. Hu. Irene M.C. Lo (The Hong Kong University of Science & Technology/China)

* Understanding Geochemical Effects on Mercury Speciation, Stability, and Potential Remedial Strategies. M. Sapanara, K. Kinsella, M. Mobile, and A. Ricciardellil. Maryann Sapanara (GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc./USA)

* = poster presentations

G9. Managing Chromium-Contaminated SitesPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Daniel Leigh (PeroxyChem, LLC) and Kim Prestbo (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)

* Chemical Reduction and Stabilization via Shallow Soil Mixing to Treat CrVI and Lead in Soil in Barranquilla, Colombia. K. Morris, C. Hernandez, R. Silva, D. Sanchez, J. Henderson, and P. Barreto. Kevin Morris (ERM/USA)

Evaluation of Stored Reducing Capacity to Optimize Operations and Maintenance for In Situ Biological Treatment of Cr(VI) in Groundwater. M. Gentile, I. Wood, L. Weigt, and F. Lenzo. Margaret Gentile (Arcadis/USA)

* Geochemical Fixation of Hexavalent Chromium Site Resulting in Expedited Remediation and Significant Reduction in Liability and Cost Savings. P.J. Palko, D.L. Schnell, and J. Gorin. Peter Palko (Panther Technologies, Inc./USA)

* Hexavalent Chromium Reduction in a Biocathodic Microbial Electrolysis Cell. G. Beretta, A. Mastorgio, S. Saponaro, and E. Sezenna. Gabriele Beretta (Politecnico di Milano/Italy)

Implementing a Rapid Response Action during a Remedial Design Phase to Protect an at-Risk Municipal Wellfield. J. Catanzarita, J. Gorin, L. Pype, F. Tsang, and J. Bolduc. Jeff Catanzarita (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/USA)

In Situ Chemical Reduction of Hexavalent Chromium in Groundwater at an Industrial Site near Athens, Greece. R.L. Olsen, O. Henseler, D.D. Nguyen, and M.R. Lamar. Roger L. Olsen (CDM Smith/USA)

Injection of pH-Adjusted Calcium Polysulfide to Treat Groundwater Plume Commingled with Cr(VI) and TCE. J. Leu, M. Bettahar, J. Goepel, S. Craig, and T.E. Yargeau. Jim Leu (Parsons/USA)

* Innovative ISCR Remediation of Hexavalent Chromium-Impacted Groundwater in a Challenging Subsurface. M.A. Apfelbaum, C.M. Rockwell, and D.R. MacDonald. Michael Apfelbaum (Woodard & Curran/USA)

* Keys to Successful In Situ Chemical Reduction (ISCR) of Hexavalent Chromium and Concomitant Geochemical Fixation of Associated Heavy Metals and Metalloids. J.V. Rouse, R. Christensen, and A. Parra De Jesudian. Jim V. Rouse (Acuity Environmental Solutions/USA)

68

* Multi-Phase, Large-Scale Implementation of Recirculation Systems to Remediate Hexavalent Chromium-Contaminated Groundwater Using Calcium Polysulfide (CaSx). Y. Kunukcu, N. Rabah, and J. Oliva. Yasemin Kunukcu (TRC Companies, Inc./USA)

Remediation of Hexavalent Chromium in a Permanganate-Treated Plume: Comparative Evaluation of Five Reducing Agents. P. Kakarla, Y. Chin, A. Hackman, and M. Wilson. Prasad Kakarla (In-Situ Oxidative Technologies [ISOTEC]/USA)

A Review of Chemical Treatment Methods for Soil and Groundwater Containing Arsenic and Chromium. A. Seech, D. Leigh, and J. Molin. Alan Seech (PeroxyChem, LLC/USA)

* Use of a Deep Horizontal Injection Well for In Situ Hexavalent Chromium Groundwater Plume Treatment: Applications and Lessons Learned. A.N. Mason, P. Rosewicz, V. Murt, J. Gorin, L. Pype, and F. Tsang. Angela Mason (US Army Corps of Engineers/USA)

* Well Rehabilitation and Sitewide Adaptive Management for In Situ Treatment of Hexavalent Chromium in Groundwater in Hinkley, California. J. Erickson and B. Prowd. Jay Erickson (Arcadis/USA)

H1. Groundwater Modeling AdvancementsPlatforms Monday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Ronald Falta (Clemson University) and Sorab Panday (GSI Environmental)

An Analytical Modeling Framework for Matrix Diffusion in Multi-Layered Systems. J. Thompson and E. Tollefsrud. Jay Thompson (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Application of Hydrogeochemical Modeling Tools (PHREEQC/PHT3D) for Study of an Environmental Remediation Site. V.V. Sewaybricker and R.O. Coelho. Victor Vanin Sewaybricker (GEOKLOCK/Brazil)

* Application of Numerical Modeling for Optimization of Groundwater Remediation Methods of the Site Contaminated with Organic Compounds on the Example of Old Gasworks in Bydgoszcz (Poland). E. Kret and M. Czop. Ewa Kret (AGH University of Science and Technology/Poland)

Characterization of the Microbially-Driven Fenton Degradation of Chlorinated Compounds Using a Modeling Approach. M. Taillefert, N. Xie, Y. Toporek, R. Sekar, and T.J. DiChrs. Martial Taillefert (Georgia Institute of Technology/USA)

* = poster presentations

The Combination of Matrix Diffusion and Abiotic Decay Makes Two Slow Natural Attenuation Processes a Dynamic Duo. K.J. Quinn, S. Sellwood, and D. Hay. Kenneth J. Quinn (TRC Companies, Inc./USA)

Comparing Simulation with Field Data to Enhance Modeling Accuracy. M.E.J. McGee and B.C.W. McGee. Meghan E.J. McGee (McMillan-McGee Corp/Canada)

* An Improved Simulation Method Using the Dual-Domain Formulation: Mass Transfer versus Mass Transfer Rate. S.T. Potter, M.P. Kladias, M.W. Killingstad, J. Wang, and K. Ashfaque. Michael Kladias (Arcadis/USA)

* Matrix Diffusion Modeling: Handling Heterogeneity. S.K. Farhat, C.J. Newell, R.W. Falta, and K. Lynch. Shahla K. Farhat (GSI Environmental, Inc./USA)

MODALL: A Tool for Effective Design and Operation of DGR™ Systems to Advance Plume Restoration. M.W. Killingstad, S.T. Potter, and M.P. Kladias. Marc Killingstad (Arcadis/USA)

* Modeling Approaches to Assess Upward DNAPL Migration Potential in Shallow Sediments to Support Remedy Design. J.B.H. Rayner, G.P. Wealthall, D.A. Reynolds, K.D. Pennell, D.W. Himmelheber, H.L. Cumberland, and J.F. Beech. James Rayner (Geosyntec Consultants/Canada)

Modeling LNAPL Source Zone Depletion at a Former Xylene Processing Facility (Germany). G.R. Carey. Grant Carey (Porewater Solutions/Canada)

* MTBE: An Innovative Remedial Strategy for an Old Contaminant of Concern. O. Uppal, M. Ambrusch, A. Kerr, J. McMains, and S. Abrams. Omer Uppal (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

* Novel 3-D Modeling Approach for Sites with Complex, Well-Characterized Geology. M. Sellwood, J. Barros, A. Wilson, E. Schwartz, J.P. Kimball, and L. Hovey. Mike Sellwood (TRC Companies, Inc./USA)

* Numerical Groundwater Modeling to Support Biowall Injection Design and Cost Strategy. J.W. Schuetz and D.R. Griffiths. James Schuetz (Parsons/USA)

Numerical Modeling for Recalcitrant Contaminants Research and Effective Remediation Solution in the Former Chemical Plant “Organika-Azot” in Jaworzno (Southern Poland). E. Kret and M. Czop. Mariusz Czop (AGH University of Science and Technology/Poland)

* Numerical Modeling of a Pumping Test to Determine Foam Spatial Distribution and Heterogeneity after a Field Site Injection. O. Atteia, E. Verardo, and C. Portois. Olivier Atteia (Bordeaux University/France)

69

H2. Conceptual Site ModelsPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Bruce Alleman (Noblis) and Angela Paolucci (Battelle)

* 3-D Printing for Visualizing Sites: Printing Models Instead of Maps. C.M. Ross, C.S. Martin, R.D. Walker, B. Jackson, and A. Barton. Chapman Ross (Geosyntec Consultants/USA)

* Benefits of an “Evergreen” Conceptual Site Model for Remedy Optimization at a Rural Northeast Superfund Site. P. Nangeroni, R. McGrath, and A. Bittner. Peter Nangeroni (Woodard & Curran/USA)

Characterizing Contaminant Transport in a Dual Aquifer System with Significant Intervening Vadose Zone Flow for Remedy Selection. E.B. Dieck, R.E. Lees, B. Bond, K. Kelly, and J. Breiner. Eric B. Dieck (LANGAN/USA)

* Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) Remediation Road Map: How to Get There from Here. D.R. Gray and B. Dahlgren. Doug Gray (AECOM/USA)

* Complex Challenges at Light Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Sites: An Overview of the NAVFAC Fact Sheet. D.W. Tomlinson, T. Meyers, W. Condit, S. Rosansky, D. Nair, and N. Durant. Derek Tomlinson (GEI Consultants, Inc./USA)

* Developing a Site Conceptual Model: The Influence of Deep Building Foundations on Contaminant Transport. M.B. Dail and M.T. Jordan. Michael Dail (Terracon/USA)

Development of Conceptual Site Models and Evaluation of Groundwater Corrective Measures for Coal Ash Sites. J.R. Hesemann, W. Weber, and E. Dulle. John Hesemann (Burns & McDonnell/USA)

* Effect of Grain Shape, Consolidation and Compaction on Interfacial Areas and Dissolution in Unsaturated Porous Media. P. Mohammadmoradi and A. Kantzas. Peyman Mohammadmoradi (University of Calgary/Canada)

Is There a Conceptual Model in a 3-D Heterogeneous Multilayer Aquifer, and How Can It Be Approached? O. Atteia, C. Portois, M. Annable, and N. Guiserix. Olivier Atteia (Bordeaux University/France)

* Quantifying Aquifer Recharge from an Unlined Drainage Ditch Receiving Treated Water. K. Sun, A. Brown, A. Barnhart, E. Keene, T. Andrews, and P. Salcido. Kerang Sun (CH2M HILL/USA)

Statistically-Based 3-D Conceptual Site Models and Time-Lapse Animation. J.D. Depa. James D. Depa (St. John-Mittelhauser and Associates/USA)

* = poster presentations

Panel Discussion—Tuesday, Track H

How Can We Improve Groundwater Transport Modeling?

ModeratorDr. Charles Newell (GSI Environmental, Inc.)

PanelistsDr. Fred Molz (Clemson University)

Dr. Fred Payne (Arcadis)Dr. Prabhakar Clement (Auburn University)

Dr. Ronald Falta (Clemson University)Dr. Sorab Panday (GSI Environmental, Inc.)

Dr. Timothy Scheibe (PNNL)

The panelist will be asked to address one or more of these key issues regarding groundwater contaminant transport modeling:

1. Is the key to better solute transport modeling to “lower our expectations?”

2. Should we change our thinking about dispersion, or is the current framework useful?

3. Do current transport models have problems with simulating matrix diffusion?

4. How do transport models fit into the world of “big data” and new visualization technologies?

5. Other topics that the panelists find important.

REMChlor-MD: A Screening Level Remediation Simulation Model that Considers Matrix Diffusion. R.W. Falta, N. Muskus, C. Newell, and S. Farhat. Ronald Falta (Clemson University/USA)

* Simulation of Nearshore Groundwater-Seawater Interactions Using SEAWAT 2000 and MODFLOW USG: A Comparative Case Study. M.Y. Chu. Min-Ying Jacob Chu (Haley & Aldrich, Inc./USA)

* Simulation of Variable Contaminant Decay in the Presence of a Decaying Carbon Substrate. J. Roller and M. Kladias. Jonathan Roller (ARCADIS/USA)

Three-Dimensional Computational Pneumatic Modeling: Why It Is a Must When Designing Remedial Systems. M. Ambrusch, O. Uppal, S. Abrams, and M. Fredlund. Matthew Ambrusch (Langan Engineering & Environmental Services/USA)

70

* Three-Dimensional Data Visualization (3DVA): A Tool for Analyzing and Presenting Complex Environmental Data Sets. J.C. Ruf. Jason Ruf (S2C2, Inc./USA)

* Traditional Site Investigation and High-Resolution Investigation: Using the Right Tools for Deciphering a Hydrogeological Model. S.S. Aluani, M.C.F. Spilborghs, F.B. Tomiatti, E. Pujol, R.C. Moura, and N.C. Nascimento. Sidney Aluani (SGW Services/Brazil)

* Use of Contaminant Phase Distribution Calculations to Support Compartment-Based Conceptual Site Models. K.D. Pennell and N.N. Akladiss. Kurt Pennell (Brown University/USA)

* = poster presentations

H3. High-Resolution Site Characterization (HRSC)Platforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Andrew Barton (Battelle) and Seth Pitkin (Cascade)

Application of High-Resolution Site Characterization Tools for Source Delineation and In Situ Thermal Treatment Design Optimization. M. Jordan, D. Phelan, G. Heron, J. Bierschenk, and D. Palmer. Michael Jordan (Cascade/USA)

* Application of OIP Tool for Quick Assessment of Environmental Liability. V.V. Sewaybricker and R. Spina. Victor Vanin Sewaybricker (GEOKLOCK/Brazil)

Confirming Laser-Induced Fluorescence NAPL Delineation in Newtown Creek Superfund Site. S.D. McDonald, C. Prabhu, S. Gbondo-Tugbawa, R. Weissbard, and R. St. Germain. Shane McDonald (Louis Berger/USA)

From Characterization to Closure of a 1-Mile Long TCE Plume. N.R. Welty, I. Drost, K. Trestrail, and D.T. Rogers. Nicklaus Welty (Arcadis/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. Koster van Groos. Haley Schneider (Texas Tech University/USA)

* High-Resolution Site Characterization in Low-Permeability Zones: When to Stop and Conclude? K. Rugge, B.T. Bay, P. Johansen, and H. Overgaard. Kirsten Rugge (COWI/Denmark)

* High-Resolution Subsurface Characterization of Nonaqueous Phase Liquid and Groundwater Impacts at a Former Manufactured Gas Plant Site. M.S. Raimonde, R.J. Meller, S.L. Goetz, R.M. Kick, B.D. Symons, and N.A. Azzolina. Michael S. Raimonde (Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC/USA)

Lessons Learned from 25 Years of High-Resolution Site Characterization. S. Pitkin. Seth Pitkin (Cascade/USA)

* Mapping and Modeling Fluorescence of Thin Stratified LNAPL, and Other Applications, Using the New High Resolution Optical Image Profiler (OIP) Tool. J.V. Fontana. John Fontana (Vista GeoScience/USA)

Panel Discussion—Tuesday, Track H

Enough is Enough: When Do You Have Enough Data?

ModeratorDavid Reynolds (Geosyntec)

PanelistsTrevor Carlson (Geosyntec)

David Thomas (Chevron) (pending confirmation)Michael Smith (Vermont DEP)

Site investigation, remediation performance, and long-term site management all require collecting data, most often with the aim of reducing uncertainty. In many cases (particularly in the monitoring phases) the actual value of the data is unknown, and the cost to collect it is not justified. During site investigation, data is often collected based on plans that are static or only moderately dynamic, and as a result the ROI for much of the collected data can be essentially zero. The panel is intended to explore specific key questions concerning the process of collecting data, ways to evaluate the worth of collected data, and the need to find a path to the end of data collection that meets site needs, regulatory requirements, and the capacity of the site owner.

The panel will include an audience-focused interactive session and a closing poll to determine what progress has been made on the key questions during the panel discussion.

71

The Heterogeneous Homogeneous Aquifer: Remediation Geology from Lessons Learned at CFB Borden. D.W. Tomlinson and N.R. Thomson. Derek Tomlinson (GEI Consultants, Inc./USA)

Introduction to EPA Technical Issue Paper: Best Suggested Practice for Characterization and Remediation of Sediments and Aquifers: Environmental Sequence Stratigraphy. M.R. Shultz, C.P. Plank, R.S. Cramer, and H. Levine. Mike Shultz (Burns & McDonnell/USA)

* Leveraging Environmental Sequence Stratigraphy to Refine Mass Discharge Estimates: Magothy Aquifer, New Jersey Coastal Plain. R.C. Samuels, J. Sadeque, M. Ohr, and S.D. Lloyd. Ryan C. Samuels (AECOM/USA)

Site Hydrostratigraphy Refinement: Integrated Field Methods for Characterizing a NAPL-Impacted Sedimentary Aquifer in Brazil. L.A.F.S. Ribeiro, P.S. Rego, G. Van de Daele, M.P. Sherrier, J.K. Henderson, C.S. Mowder, and O. Maurer. Lucas Andreata F. S. Ribeiro (CH2M/Brazil)

* Understanding Subsurface Stratigraphy for PFAS Environmental Characterization Using Modern Analogs. J. Sadeque and J.M. Cuthbertson. Junaid Sadeque (AECOM/USA)

Use of Electrical Conductivity Logging for Risk Evaluation at a Gasoline Spill Site. J.T. Wilson, K. Jewell, J. Weaver, and H. White. John Wilson (Scissortail Environmental Solutions, LLC/USA)

Using Applied Environmental Sequence Stratigraphy to Predict TCE Contaminant Migration Pathways: Air Force Plant 42, Palmdale, California. R.C. Samuels and J.L. Gillespie. Ryan C. Samuels (AECOM/USA)

H5. Improvements in Site Data Collection, Data Management, and Data VisualizationPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Joseph Quinnan (Arcadis) and Junaid Sadeque (AECOM)

* Ants in the Strat? Current Research on the Geoenvironmental Use of Ant Colony Optimization Paradigm. B. Harding and A. Downard. Barry Harding (AECOM/USA)

* Assessing Impact of Mechanical Remediation Systems on Natural Attenuation Using Tetrahedral Analysis. K. Sra, K. McVey, and E. Daniels. Kammy Sra (Chevron Energy Technology Company/USA)

Newly Developed Aquifer Characterization Procedure by Means of Hydraulic Profiling Tool and Mini Pump Tests. E. Martac, B. Berbee, and G.R. van Goor. Eugen Martac (Fugro Consult GmbH/Germany)

* Real-Time Identification and Characterization Approaches to Perched Water Zones. A. Gupta, C. Shepherd, W. McCall, N. Welty, and J. Quinnan. Ankit Gupta (Arcadis/USA)

Specialty Electrical Resistivity Imaging at NAPL-Impacted Site in Brazil: Key Contributions to the Conceptual Site Model. C.S. Mowder, L. Ribeiro, P. Rego, G. Van den Daele, P. Barreto, O. Maurer, M. Sherrier, and J. Henderson. Carol Mowder (CH2M/USA)

Stratigraphic Flux: Applying Sequence Stratigraphy and High-Resolution Site Characterization to Find Contaminant Flux. J.A. Quinnan, P. Curry, E. Killenbeck, L. Peters, K.C. Glover, and C. Varley. Joseph Quinnan (Arcadis/USA)

* Using HPT-GWS Direct Push Tooling to Delineate Uranium Impacts in Groundwater at a Former Fuel Processing Facility. J.L. Binder and B.R. Hoye. Brian Hoye (Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc./USA)

* Why the Historical VOC Production Trends Necessitate the Use of High-Resolution Site Characterization Techniques. C.A. Cox. Craig Cox (Cox-Colvin & Associates, Inc./USA)

H4. Remediation Geology: Geology-Focused Approach to Remediation Site ManagementPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Rick Cramer (Burns & McDonnell) and Herbert Levine (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)

Focus on Geology to Improve In Situ Remediation Outcomes: Perspectives for the Remediation Engineer. P.M. Dombrowski. Paul Dombrowski (In-Situ Oxidative Technologies [ISOTEC]/USA)

A Geology-Focused Approach at Three Industrial Sites to Enhance Conceptual Site Models and Remedial Design. K. Carr and A. Rees. Katharine Carr (AECOM/USA)

Graphical Core Logging: Maximizing Your Opportunity to Observe Actual Subsurface Conditions. C.P. Plank and M.R. Shultz. Colin Plank (Burns & McDonnell/USA)

72

* High-Resolution Site Characterization (HRSC) and Three-Dimensional Data Visualization for a Fractured Rock Site: A Path to Streamlined Closure. J. Orris and J. Ruf. Joshua Orris (Antea Group/USA)

* Innovative Visualization Method for Demonstrating Natural and Enhanced Attenuation. G.R. Carey. Grant Carey (Porewater Solutions/Canada)

Interactive Visualizations of 5 Million Sensor Measurements of the Capillary Fringe Lead to an Optimized Soil Remedy. T. Kalinowski, C. Dixon, C. Brownfield, S. Mikaelian, and M. Terril. Tomasz Kalinowski (AECOM/USA)

* Make Your Microsoft® Excel Work Harder: Everyday Data Visualization Approaches for Remediation Projects. M. Ohr and S.D. Lloyd. Matthias Ohr (AECOM/USA)

* Non-Intrusive and Cost-Effective Investigation of Chlorinated Solvents at a Former Dry Cleaner. L. Torin. Lena Torin (Golder Associates AB/Sweden)

* Reimagining Bedrock Conceptual Models with Simplifying Assumptions, Spreadsheets, and Visualization Tools: An Approachable Method for Qualitative Evaluation of Fate and Transport. B.P. Shedd, J. Alix, and R.R. Thompson. Brian P. Shedd (United States Army Corps of Engineers/USA)

Saturated Soil Sampling to Determine Effective Source Remedy Strategies. P.J. Curry, J.A. Quinnan, and J. Wright. Patrick Curry (Arcadis-US/USA)

Use of Multiple Direct-Sensing Technologies and 3-D Visualization to Complete a High-Resolution Site Characterization of a DNAPL Pool. T. Koester, S.B. Gelb, R.M. Ruf, K. English, and M.K. Morelli. Tom Koester (S2C2, Inc/USA)

Using Augmented Reality to Improve Communications and Decision Making of Stakeholders at a Former Chemical Manufacturing Facility. T.A. Fewless and I. Richardson. Thomas Allen Fewless (GHD/USA)

Augmented Reality: The Future of Conceptual Site Models. N.R. Welty, A. Yanites, and J.A. Quinnan. Nicklaus Welty (Arcadis/USA)

* An Automated Approach for Selecting Statistical Routines to Identify Releases as Part of the 2016 CCR Rules. M.J. Ungs. Michael Ungs (Tetra Tech/USA)

* The Benefits of Acquiring Continuous Cores for Aquifer Characterization: Lessons from Petroleum Industry Best Practices. J. Sadeque. Junaid Sadeque (AECOM/USA)

* Best Prediction and Uncertainty Analysis of VOC-Impacted Soils Using Regression Kriging and Monte-Carlo Simulation. C. Holbert, R. Gates, D. Waite, G. Colgan, and M. Roginske. Charles Holbert (CH2M HILL/USA)

CSM Development and In Situ Bioremediation Optimization in Fractured Bedrock Using 3-D Visualization and Analysis. E.B. Dieck, R.E. Lees, B. Bond, K. Kelly, and J. Breiner. Eric B. Dieck (LANGAN/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)

Data, Data, Data: Development of an Integrated Information Management System to Support Complex Environmental Programs and Projects. C. Gepner and B.R. Hoye. Christina Gepner (Burns & McDonnell/USA)

* Detailed Geological Modelling of a Contaminated Urban Area Based on Geophysical Mapping: A Case Study from Horsens, Denmark. T.R. Andersen and S.E. Poulsen. Theis Raaschou Andersen (VIA University College/Denmark)

Geologic Modeling and Digital Visualization of Complex Data Sets: A Contaminant Fate and Transport Fractured Bedrock Case Study. J. Drummond, F. Barranco, K. Fox, B. Rundell, and R. Bower. Jesse Drummond (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC/USA)

* Graphical Method for Delineating Redox Zones in Groundwater. G.R. Carey. Grant Carey (Porewater Solutions/Canada)

An Evaluation of Electronic Field Data Collection Solutions: Lessons Learned. D. Cleland and T. Wright. David Cleland (Groundwater & Environmental Services, Inc./USA)

73

Effects-Driven Assessment and Management of Complex Operating Sites: Results of Initial Field Investigation. P. Campbell, S. Siciliano, and K. Bradshaw. Patrick Campbell (Wood/Canada)

Evaluation of Bioavailability of Contaminants in Soil: State-of-the-Art Guidance from ITRC. C. Sorrentino, K. Durant, and L. Hay Wilson. Claudio Sorrentino (California Department of Toxic Substances Control/USA)

* Focused Testing to Resolve Sediment Toxicity for Ecological Risk Assessment at a Complex Urban Waterway. D. Haury, L. Logan, and D. Hennessy. David Haury (Anchor QEA, LLC/USA)

Guidance on Establishing Remediation Objectives for Sites in Australia. J.N. Jit, B.P. Kennedy, and R. Naidu. Joytishna Jit (CRC CARE / UniSA/Australia)

Oral Bioavailability of Nonpolar Organic Chemicals in Soil for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment. S. Yu, R. Schoof, and D. Harrekilde. Shuo Yu (Ramboll Environ/USA)

* Risk Assessment: Challenges and Opportunities, Emerging Contaminants, and More. J. Phillips. Jenny Phillips (TRC/USA)

Using a Risk-Based Approach to Guide Remedial Goals: Oral Relative Bioavailability of PAHs at Formerly Used Defense Sites. N.D. Forsberg, B.H. Magee, A.K. Meyer, G.C. Hoeger, and C.M. Duarte. Norman Forsberg (Arcadis U.S., Inc./USA)

Using Data Management and 3-Dimensional Data Visualization to Generate More Complete Conceptual Site Models and Streamline Site Closure. J. Orris and J. Ruf. Joshua Orris (Antea Group/USA)

* When the Data are Conflicting or Confusing: Which Data Should You Believe? E.L. Davis. Eva Davis (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/USA)

H6. Risk Assessment and Bioavailability ConsiderationsPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Stephanie Hines (Battelle) and Claudio Sorrentino (California Department of Toxic Substances Control)

* Application of the Method for Environmental Risk Assessment of the EPA in an Area Contaminated by Pesticides, Organic Compounds, and Metals: Case Study. V.V. Sewaybricker and R. Spina. Rubens Spina (GEOKLOCK/Brazil)

California Arsenic Bioaccessibility Method: Bench-Top Prediction of Relative Bioavailability in Contaminated Soils. V.M. Hanley, C. Sorrentino, S. Whitacre, and N.T. Basta. Valerie Mitchell Hanley (California Department of Toxic Substances Control/USA)

74

* Bioaccumulation of Trace Metals in Meretrix lyrata near the Saigon-Dong Nai River Estuary, Vietnam. V.T. Tran, D.P. Nguyen, and E. Strady. Viet Tuan Tran (Institute for Tropicalization and Environment/Vietnam)

Bringing State-of-the-Art Technology to a Developing Country: A Capacity Building and Knowledge Transfer Success Story. J. Galligan, G. Heron, J. Bierschenk, R. Michalewich, S. Walker, G. Anderson, T. Burdett, D. Tran, C. Pruitt, K. Sorensen, and P. Chenevey. Jim Galligan (TerraTherm, Inc./USA)

* Comparative Study of 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid Adsorption onto Alkali-Activated Carbon Nanotubes and Activated Carbon. H.K. Hue, L.V. Anh, and L.M. Cam. Hoang Kim Hue (Chemical Command/Vietnam)

I1. Advancing Environmental Science and Remediation in VietnamPlatforms Monday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Daniel Moats (Hatfield Consultants) and Kent Sorenson (CDM Smith, Inc.)

Advancing Hazardous Waste Characterization and Remediation Capacity in a Developing Country: Agent Orange Case Study in Vietnam. K.S. Sorenson, R.E. Chichakli, P.M. Chenevey, and D. Moats. Kent Sorenson (CDM Smith, Inc./USA)

Bioaccumulation of PCDD/Fs in Foodstuffs Collected Near Bien Hoa and Da Nang Airbases: Assessment for Sources, Environmental Distribution, and Their Intake by Humans. N.H. Minh, N.V. Thuong, N.T.M. Hue, T.M. Tri, T.B. Minh, and T.T.T Hanh. Hung Minh Nguyen (Vietnam Environment Administration/Vietnam)

Panel Discussion—Monday, Track I

International Perspectives on Management Approaches for PFAS

ModeratorRula A. Deeb (Geosyntec)

This panel will provide an overview of international approaches to managing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), highlighting key differences as well as topic areas where collective agreement and shared challenges are emerging. Invited panelists will provide perspectives from Australia, Canada, Europe (Norway, Sweden, Germany, The Netherlands, United Kingdom) and the United States.

The panel discussion will span 100 minutes. The moderator will provide an overview of the panel’s goals and introduce the panelists with international experience addressing various aspects of PFAS contamination, including source control, fate and transport, ecotoxicology and risk assessment, treatment, liability, and applied research and development of innovative environmental solutions. Next, each panelist will present a short overview of PFAS regulations and priorities for a country/region, aspects of their own PFAS experience, and relevant examples, success stories and failures, and lessons learned. These overview presentations will be followed by open discussion involving the audience.

Several themes will be raised for panelists to discuss. Examples include the following:

• What are the key differences among these countries in addressing PFAS contamination? What aspects of the countries’ regulatory frameworks facilitate or hinder addressing contamination? • Compare regulatory frameworks for PFAS in other countries to the framework in the U.S. or in specific U.S. states. • What can the U.S. learn from research and practical experience in other countries on PFAS?• What do we (collectively) still need to learn about PFAS?• What is the range of acceptability for the reuse or disposal of PFAS-contaminated wastes?• What are differences in sources of PFAS in different countries, if any? What types of source control measures have been identified?• Regardless of location, what are the latest developments for treatment of PFAS? • Is consensus evolving among different countries as to what constitutes safe levels of PFAS in the environment?

Additional questions may build on key topics of discussion from the First International PFAS Conference at CleanUp 2017 in Melbourne, Australia, as well as a recent expert workshop on PFAS research needs conducted by SERDP/ESTCP in May 2017, key findings and discussion topics from Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC) PFAS team meetings and fact sheets, and other recent publications and conference presentations.

75

Application of Enhanced Reductive Dechlorination: The Value of Assessing Site Conditions Prior to Decision Making. J. Bastrup and H. Ashur. Hamdi Abdi Ashur (Geo/Denmark)

* Application of Multiple Technologies to Achieve Risk-Based Remediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in a Challenging International Environment. T. Simpkin and C. Romero. Tom Simpkin (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Application of World Advanced Remediation Technologies in China. Z. Mei, G. Lu, Z. Liu, and H. Shan. Huifeng Shan (PeroxyChem, LLC/China)

* Challenges in the Implementation of the Remediation Actions in a Residential Area with a History of Conflict of Interest. V.V. Sewaybricker and R. Spina. Victor Vanin Sewaybricker (GEOKLOCK/Brazil)

* Combination of Chemical Oxidation and Electrokinetic for LNAPL Remediation in a Tropical Soil Capillary Fringe. L.P.M. Silveira, B.O. Agostinho, I.P. Leme, L.M.U. Morioka, S.R. Honda, S.A.C. Furquim, and J.G. Freitas. Lilian Puerta Machado Silveira (UNIFESP, Integrated Environmental Analysis/Brazil)

* Complexities Surrounding China’s Soil Action Plan: A Scientific Perspective. D. Hou. Deyi Hou (Tsinghua University/China)

* Consolidating Regulations and Risk-Based Management Will Promote the Effective and Sustainable Development of Contaminated Site Remediation in China. G. Guo, C. Zhang, W. Wang, and Z. Fu. Guanlin Guo (Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences/China)

In Situ Source Zone Remediation Using Electrical Resistance Heating on a Project Site Located near Troyes, France. M. van den Brand, J. van Rossum, M. Stumbaugh, and T. Warner. Marco van den Brand (TRS Europe/Netherlands)

* Largest ERH Site in Latin America. A.L. Donzelli and J. Seeman. Ana Lygia Donzelli (Cyrela/Brazil)

Lessons Learned from an In Situ Thermal Desorption Pilot in Shanghai China. S. Zhang, H. Tu, C. Wang, and L. Ma. Sailor Zhang (Shanghai Greenment Environmental Technology Co., Ltd./China)

* Numerical Simulation of Solute Migration Facilitated Groundwater Remedial Design under a Hexavalent Chromium-Contaminated Site. Z. Ding and N. Sun. Zhenyu Ding (Chinese Academy for Environmental Planning/China)

Concentration and Temporal Trends of PCDDs/PCDFs in Ambient Air at the Agent Orange Remediation Site between 2013 and 2017 Using Passive Samplers. T.K. Sau, X.T. Nghiem, D.T. Nguyen, and D.L. Han. Trinh Khac Sau (Vietnam-Russia Tropical Centre/Vietnam)

* Degradation of 2,4,6-Trinitrotulene (TNT) in Wastewater by Advanced Oxidation System Fe0/H2O/Na2S2O8/EDTA. N.T. Huong, T.V. Chung, T.D. Hoanh, and K.H. Binh. Nguyen Thu Huong (Academy of Military Science and Technology/Vietnam)

Dioxin Remediation at the Da Nang Airport Using the Incremental Sampling Methodology for Soil and Sediment Confirmation Sampling. A.A. Lopez, K.S. Sorenson, R.E. Chichakli, J.T. Bamer, and D. Moats. Alexis Lopez (CDM Smith/USA)

* Diversity of Bacteria Produces Lignocellulolytic Enzymes in the Rumen of Goats Harvestedin Vietnam. K.H.V. Nguyen, T.H. Do, and N.H. Truong. Nguyen Khanh Hoang Viet (Institute of New Technology/Vietnam)

* Stakeholder Engagement and Capacity Building for Dioxin Remediation in Vietnam. J. Mason, R. Chichakli, D. Moats, P. Chenevey, and M.P. Nguyen. Jasmine Mason (Hatfield Consultants/Canada)

* Synthesis of Carbon Aerogel from Waste Paper for Removal of Heavy Metal Ion in Aqueous Solutions. T.T. Nguyen, V.T. Nguyen, T.T. Do, M.T. Nguyen, and T.H. Nguyen. Hung Tran Nguyen (Hanoi Insitute of Chemistry and Materials Science/Vietnam)

I2. International Case StudiesPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Thiago Gomes (TRSDoxor) and Jun Ma (Baohang Environmental Co., Ltd.)

* Abiotic and Biotic TCE Reduction Bench Study Using Local Organic Carbon and Iron Sources Conducted in Sao Paulo, Brazil. K. Morris, M. Singer, and B. Gil. Kevin Morris (ERM/USA)

Advance in Health Risk Assessment Methodology of Brownfield Sites in China. L. Jiang and M.S. Zhong. Lin Jiang (Beijing Municipal Research Institute of Environmental Protection/China)

* An Approach to the Beneficial Use of Fine Sediments by Solidification: I. Leaching Properties and Intensity. K. Kim, E.-J. Won, Y. Gang, and K. Ra. Kyoungrean Kim (Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology/South Korea)

76

I3. Botany “Mega” Site Cleanup ProjectPlatforms Tuesday | Posters (*) Monday EveningChairs: Julie Konzuk (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.) and James Stening (Orica Australia Pty Ltd)

Adaptive Remediation Management of a Groundwater Cleanup Project. J.C. Fairweather and J.R. Stening. James Fairweather (Orica Ltd./Australia)

* Aerobic Biodegradation of 1,2-Dichloroethane at the Botany Industrial Park. J.E. Munro, E.F. Liew, M.-A. Ly, and N.V. Coleman. Nicholas V. Coleman (University of Sydney/Australia)

An Iterative Approach to Improve Model Predictions and Site Conceptual Models. A. Laase, J. Rumbaugh, and J. Stening. Al Laase (Navarro Research and Engineering/USA)

* Botany Groundwater Cleanup Project: Arguably the Largest and Most Complex in Australia. J.R. Stening. James Stening (Orica Australia Pty Ltd/Australia)

* A Case Study of the Anatomy of a Dynamic High Concentration Chlorinated Solvent Plume and Consequences on Remedial Strategy. J. Duran. Joe Duran (Golder Associates/Australia)

* Evolution of a Conceptual Site Model for the Botany Chlorinated Hydrocarbon “Mega-Site” Cleanup Project. A. Woinarski, G. Dasey, and J. Stening. Andrei Woinarski (Senversa Pty Ltd/Australia)

Insights on Risk-Reduction Mechanisms from 12 Years of Operation of a Pump-and-Treat System at the Botany Chlorinated Hydrocarbon “Mega-Site.” G. Dasey, A. Woinarski, and S. Corish. Greg Dasey (JBS&G Australia Pty Ltd/Australia)

Microbial Metabolism of the Priority Pollutant Trichloromethane in Subsurface Environments. M.J. Manefield, M.J. Lee, and J. Stening. Matthew Lee (University of New South Wales/Australia)

Natural Source Zone Depletion Studies at the Botany Groundwater Cleanup Program. C.J. Newell, P. Kulkarni, J. Stening, J. Fairweather, L. Alexander, and J. Zimbron. Charles Newell (GSI Environmental, Inc./USA)

* Technology Screening and Remedy Selection at Large-Scale, Complex DNAPL Sites: Orica Botany Case Study. E. Suchomel and M. Kavanaugh. Eric J. Suchomel (Geosyntec Consultants/USA)

Why Is the Plume Disappearing Faster than it Should? Mass Loss Investigations at the Orica Botany Site. J.S. Konzuk, C. Crea, S. Mancini, and L. Jorstad. Julie Konzuk (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./Canada)

* Remediation of Chlorinated Groundwater Plumes in Denmark: A Technology Development Project. N. Tuxen, D. Harrekilde, L. Bennedsen, and M.M. Broholm. Dorte Harrekilde (Ramboll/Denmark)

* Remediation of Mercury Contamination at a Former ChlorAlkali Plant in NSW Using Integrated Cap and Containment Technologies. G. Butterfield, G. Schmertmann, C. Vernon, F. Cosme, J. Stening, and A.D. Laase. Gavan Butterfield (Golder Associates Pty Ltd/Australia)

* The Results from Three Years of Wide-Scale Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Assessment and Mitigation. A.W. Pruszinski, D.C. McGill, S. Thompson, and M.R. Talbot. Andrew Pruszinski (Environment Protection Authority/Australia)

* Searching for the Crucial Piece of the Plume Puzzle: A Case Study from Central Denmark Region, Denmark. H.J. Blæsbjerg and S.G. Lauridsen. Helle Jusjong Blæsbjerg (Central Denmark Region/Denmark)

* A Set of Complete Technological System-Based Soil Washing for the Remediation of a Heavy Metals-Contaminated Site. Y. Li and X.-Y. Liao. You Li (Chinese Academy of Science/China)

Thermal Source Remediation of VOCs at a Residential Condominium in Sao Paulo, Brazil. G. Setti, C. Rodrigues, A.P. Queiroz, T. Borba, P. Lima, and D. Damasi. Ana Paula Queiroz (Waterloo Brasil/Brazil)

* Those Stubborn Sterilants: Environmental Management of Sites Impacted with Bromacil, Dicamaba, and Tebuthiuron. B. Rakewich and H. Bakker. Barry Rakewich (Nichols Environmental Ltd./Canada)

Treatability Studies and Pilot Test Program for Remedial Selection in a NAPL-Impacted Site in Brazil. P. Barreto, C. Mowder, E.E. Mack, and J. Henderson. Paola Barreto Quintero (CH2M HILL/USA)

77

* Differing Carbon Isotope Fractionation during Anaerobic Biodegradation of Ethylene Dibromide by Dehalococcoides- and Dehalogenimonas-Containing Cultures. J. Palau, M. Rosell, A. Soler, R. Yu, D.L. Freedman, S.H. Mortan, E. Marco-Urrea, G. Caminal, and O. Shouakar-Stash. Orfan Shouakar-Stash (Isotope Tracer Technologies, Inc./Canada)

* Direct Application of CSIA for Degradation Pathway Distinction. D. Taggart, M. Burns, and S. Rosolina. Sam Rosolina (Microbial Insights, Inc./USA)

* Field Application of CSIA for Vapor Intrusion/Indoor Air Quality Assessment: Determination of TCE Source in Residence. D. Rowe, C. Serlin, S. Dergham, and E. Pearson. Devon Rowe (Ramboll Environ Corporation/USA)

Hydrogen Isotope Effects in Reactions of Chlorinated Ethenes: Potential Tool for Discrimination of Chlorinated Ethenes Degradation Pathways. T. Kuder, A. Sullivan Ojeda, and R.P. Philp. Tomasz Kuder (University of Oklahoma/USA)

Integrated Assessment of Anaerobic Reductive Dechlorination of Chlorinated Ethenes by Stable Isotope Analysis and Microbial Techniques. C.B. Ottosen, M.M. Broholm, K. Tsitonaki, J. Zimmermann, D. Hunkeler, and N. Tuxen. Cecilie Bang Ottosen (Technical University of Denmark [DTU]/Denmark)

* Multi-Elemental Isotope Analysis as a Tool for Characterizing Degradation Pathways of Bromophenols. F. Gelman, Y. Zakon, L. Halicz, R. Golan, A. Bernstein, Z. Ronen, and T. Kuder. Faina Gelman (Geological Survey of Israel/Israel)

* Post-Bioremediation Bulk Vinyl Chloride Attenuation Rate Estimation in an Overburden Groundwater Aquifer in Kansas. C.J. Voci and A.K. Gulli. Christopher Voci (Terraphase Engineering Inc./USA)

I5. Environmental ForensicsPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Jaana Pietari (Exponent, Inc.) and Amy Wilson (TRC)

* Advances in Oil Spill Forensic Analysis Using Biomarkers and Isotope Ratio Techniques. H. Behzadi. Harry Behzadi (SGS North America/USA)

* Characterization of Contaminants of Potential Concern in NAPLs from Multiple Sources in a Superfund Site. C. Prabhu, S. McDonald, S. Gbondo-Tugbawa, Y. Wang, and R. Weissbard. Chitra Prabhu (The Louis Berger Group, Inc./USA)

I4. Compound-Specific Isotope AnalysisPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Ramon Aravena (University of Waterloo) and Tomasz Kuder (University of Oklahoma)

* d13C and d37Cl Isotope Fractionation for Distinguishing between Aerobic and Anaerobic Degradation of TCE. A. Gafni, C. Lihl, F. Gelman, M. Elsner, and A. Bernstein. Almog Gafni (Ben Goriun University of the Negev, Israel/Israel)

Advancing Application of CSIA to Estimate Degradation Rates: Linking Differences in PCE Isotopic Fractionation to Metabolic Potential. S. Mancini, J. Konzuk, C. Cheyne, L. Douglas, B. Sherwood Lollar, E. Edwards, L. Hug, and J. Stening. Silvia Mancini (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./Canada)

Application of CSIA in 1,4-Dioxane Studies: Latest Developments. P. Bennett, M.Y. Chu, R. Aravena, H.T. El Mugammar, C. Smith, M. Hyman, and M. Nickelsen. Peter Bennett (Haley & Aldrich, Inc./USA)

Characterization by the Use of 37Cl, 13C and 2H: Compound-Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA), Biological Molecular Techniques (BMTs) and Numerical Modeling of a Site Contaminated by Monochlorobenzene. M. Marchesi, I. Pietrini, M. Antelmi, L. Alberti, T. Stella, A. Franzetti, D. Antonelli, F. de Ferra, R. Aravena, and O. Shouakar-Stash. Massimo Marchesi (Politecnico di Milano/Italy)

Characterization of the Intrinsic Biodegradation Potential of an Aquifer Contaminated with Chlorinated Ethenes and Implementation of a Field-Scale Biostimulation Test. E. Marco-Urrea, T. Vicent, N. Blàzquez-Palli, J. Varias, M. Bosch, M. Rossell, and A. Soler. Ernest Marco-Urrea (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona/Spain)

* Chlorine and Hydrogen Isotope Fractionations during Physical Processes. F. Vakili and O. Shouakar-Stash. Fatemeh Vakili (Isotope Tracer Technologies Inc./Canada)

* Compound-Specific Carbon Stable Isotope Analysis of Chlorinated Ethenes following Pre-Concentration by In-Tube Extraction (ITEX). C.T. Yarnes. Christopher Yarnes (University of California, Davis/USA)

Compound-Specific Isotope Analysis and Microbial Molecular Data for Effective Monitoring of a Bioremediation Pilot Trial at a Heavily-Contaminated 1,2-DCA Area: Laboratory and Field Results. F. De Ferra, G. Carpani, L. Zaninetta, I. Pietrini, L. Alberti, and M. Marchesi. Francesca DeFerra (ENI/Italy)

78

A Multipurpose Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) for Water Sampling and Mapping in a Flooded Mine Pit. I.S. Fairwather, L. Burmeister, and J. Jonas. Ian S. Fairweather (Fairweather IT LLC/USA)

Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS): Redefining Vegetation Analysis. D.C. Mummert. Daniel C. Mummert (Trihydro Corporation/USA)

Unmanned Aircraft Systems: History of the Technology and Uses in Site Investigations, Surveying and Other Environmental Applications. J. Popiel, P. Eaton, and A. Lindemann. Paul Eaton (Geotech Environmental/USA)

Unmanned Partially Autonomous Boat for Profiling and Sampling the Berkeley Pit. T.A. Duaime, G.A. Icopini, B.E. Hill, P. Cote, W. Leishman, A. Alangari, M. Erickson, T. Holliday, C. Ellertson, and T. Fricks. Bryce Ensign Hill (Montana Tech of the University of Montana/USA)

I7. Innovative Sampling and Investigation ToolsPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Rodrigo Coelho (GEOKLOCK) and Richard Stewart (Ziltek Pty., Ltd.)

Coupled Radiocarbon and Short-Term Incubations Measure In Situ Hydrocarbon Degradation Rates. T.J. Boyd, R.H. Cuenca, Y. Hagimoto, and M.T. Montgomery. Thomas Boyd (U.S. Naval Research Laboratory/USA)

* Cryogenic Coring of LNAPL for Independent Verification of NSZD Rates. M. Lyverse, T. Sale, and M. Irianni-Renno. Mark Lyverse (Chevron Corporation/USA)

Direct Determination of Dechlorination Rates Using Radiolabeled cis-DCE Enabling Optimized Risk and Plume Management. R. Jakobsen, C.N. Albers, K. Tsitonaki, M.M. Broholm, L. Clausen, and N. Tuxen. Rasmus Jakobsen (Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland [GEUS]/Denmark)

* Estimating NAPL Effective Hydraulic Conductivity and Potential Velocity in the Field Based on Laboratory Pore-Fluid Mobility Test Results. M.J. Gefell, K. Russell, and M. Mahoney. Michael Gefell (Anchor QEA, LLC/USA)

* An Evaluation of Metals and Hydrocarbon Field Screening Methodology for Enhanced Soil Contamination Delineation. B. Reed and J. Zepeda. Brandon A. Reed (TRC Companies/USA)

* Characterizing Sheens in Combined Sewer Overflow and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Discharges to Newtown Creek. J. Quadrini. James Quadrini (Anchor QEA, LLC/USA)

Chemical Fingerprinting of PFASs in Sediment, Biota and Surface Water Associated with AFFF Release Areas: Implications of Differences. S.F. Gormley, A. Bernhardt, M.L. Bevier, S.Thomas, R. Singer, and M. Helton. Sean Gormley (Wood/USA)

Development and Application of the Forensic Approach to Determine Contaminant Sources in the Environment. R.P. Philp. R. Paul Philp (University of Oklahoma/USA)

* Environmental Forensics Applied to Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). J. Hatton, W. DiGuiseppi, C. Holton, E. Piña, and N. Badon. James W. Hatton (CH2M HILL/USA)

* Extended Congener and Speciation Analysis of PCBs, Dioxins and Hydrocarbons for Environmental Forensics: Applications. B. Chandramouli, R. Grace, M. Woudneh, and M.C. Hamilton. Bharat Chandramouli (SGS AXYS/Canada)

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance: An Improved Source Fingerprinting Analytical Tool. J. Longstaffe, J.S. Konzuk, C. Cheyne, S. Mancini, M. McMaster, and E.E. Mack. Julie Konzuk (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./Canada)

* Stable and Radio Isotope Analysis to Identify Sources of Methane during a Remedial Action. R. Coffin, E. Benson, and J. Mueller. Jim Mueller (Provectus Environmental Products, Inc./USA)

Tracking Chlorinated Solvents in the Environment. I.G. Petrisor. Ioana Gloria Petrisor (ToxStrategies, Inc./USA)

The Value of Matrix Diffusion Modeling When Applied to Solvent Release History Forensics. J. Thompson and E. Tollefsrud. Jay Thompson (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

I6. Unmanned Systems for Remote MonitoringPlatforms Wednesday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Irene Montero (BP Remediation Management) and Daniel C. Mummert (Trihydro Corporation)

* Environmental Applications for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. W. Stiteler and A. McManus. William Stiteler (Arcadis U.S., Inc./USA)

79

I8. Real-Time Analysis to Inform Decision-MakingPlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Murray Einarson (Haley & Aldrich, Inc.) and Friedrich Krembs (Trihydro Corporation)

Adaptive Response to Vapor Intrusion during Thermal Remediation Based on Continuous Vapor Monitoring and Web-Based Real-Time Data Reporting. N. Clite, M. Lawson, K. Manheimer, M. Kram, and B. Hartman. Nova Clite (OTIE/USA)

* Application of Navigation System for Real-Time, Large-Scale VOCs and Gas Detection at a Remote Potential Spill Site. P. Berutti and J.P. Davit. Paolo Berutti (Golder Associates s.r.l./Italy)

* Autonomous LNAPL and Groundwater Level Monitoring: Repeatable, Reliable, and Robust. D. Holmes. David Holmes (Ecologia Environmental Solutions Limited/United Kingdom)

* Benefits of Using Down-Well, Real-Time, Telemetric Water Quality Meters to Monitor the Effects of an In Situ Chemical Oxidation Remediation. S.V.F. Kozicki, B.D. Symons, and R.M. Kick. Sharon Kozicki (Foth Infrastructure and Environment/USA)

High-Resolution Monitoring for Thermal Remediation Optimization. C.A. Hook, A.M. Chrest, R.F. Davis, C.J. Pike, and M.P. Speranza. Christopher Hook (Tetra Tech, Inc./USA)

* Rapid Measurement of Petroleum Hydrocarbons during Site Remediation. R. Stewart, G. Chien, and L. Lin. Richard Stewart (Ziltek Pty., Ltd./Australia)

Real-Time Data Monitoring during Source Zone Remediation Using Large Diameter Auger with Steam and Zero-Valent Iron. C. Soistman, J. Langenbach, and Z. Munger. Catherine Soistman (Geosyntec Consultants/USA)

Real-Time Measurements of Hydrocarbon Concentrations in Soils. N. Sihota and T. Miao. Natasha Sihota (Chevron Energy Technology Company/USA)

* Source Zone and Plume Characterization Using Smart Characterization and Real-Time Techniques in Brazil. J. Vilar, M.R. Sousa, J. Smith, J. Overgord, N. Welty, K. Haymond, A. Joly, G. Martinelli, C. Umilta, and C. Petroni. Marcelo Rodrigues de Sousa (Arcadis/Brazil)

Successful TCE DNAPL Source Area Remediation through Real-Time Analysis of Oxidant Concentration during ISCO. R. Bunker, J.T. Spadaro, M.G. Sweetenham, F.J. Krembs, and K. McDonald. Michael Sweetenham (Trihydro Corporation/USA)

* Field Tests with the OIP-Green DP Photo-Logging System for Detection of Coal Tars. W. McCall, T.M. Christy, D.A. Pipp, B. Jaster, R. Bean, and I. Smith. Wesley McCall (Geoprobe Systems/USA)

* MiProbe: Recent Test Results for a (Bio)Electrochemical Sensor System for Continuous Redox Surrogate Monitoring. J. Studer, K. Polansky, and S. Burge. James Studer (InfraSUR, LLC/USA)

* Novel Technology for Sampling Volatiles in the Unsaturated Zone. P. Larsen, P. Loll, C. Larsen, and H.C.K. Østergaard. Poul Larsen (Dansk Miljoradgivning A/S/Denmark)

Polyethylene Devices (PEDs): Customizable Tools for Unique Applications in a Variety of Environmental Scenarios. E.M. Kaltenberg and L.F. Lefkovitz. Eliza Kaltenberg (Battelle/USA)

Rapid Mapping of Soils in China Using a Handheld Device. R. Stewart. Richard Stewart (Ziltek Pty., Ltd./Australia)

* Rare Earth Elements: Potential Natural Tracers for In Situ Remediation of Groundwater. R.T. Wilkin, R.D. Ludwig, and T.R. Lee. Richard T. Wilkin (U.S. EPA/USA)

* Real-Time and In Situ Monitoring of Aquatic Environments Using Indigenous Microbial Community-Based Biosensors. T.M. Vogel, M. Altizer, J.M. Monier, and O. Sibourg. Timothy Vogel (University of Lyon/USA)

* Reduced Variability In Groundwater Monitoring Results Using the TIGER™ Time-Integrated Groundwater Sampler. T. McHugh, H. O’Neill, K. Moran, B. Oyston, and A. Schumacher. Thomas McHugh (GSI Environmental, Inc./USA)

* Simple, Rapid, Cost-Effective Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Measurement in the Field Using Fresh Sediment Cores. M.J. Gefell, K. Russell, and M. LaRue. Michael Gefell (Anchor QEA, LLC/USA)

Use of an Innovative Multi-Increment Sampling Approach to Estimate Mass Balance and Optimize Remediation of PCE in Soil. W.Y. Ng, S. Cocchia, and F.D. Hopkins. Sergio Cocchia (CH2M Hill/USA)

* What is between These Two Wells? Cross Borehole Georadar for Identifying Migration Pathways at Contaminated Sites. K. Tsitonaki, M.C.L. Zibar, L. Nielsen, N. Tuxen, and A. Edsen. Katerina Tsitonaki (Orbicon A/S/Denmark)

80

Molecular Biological Tools: Where Will the Journey Take Us? F.E. Loeffler. Frank Loeffler (University of Tennessee/USA)

Molecular Characterization to Monitor Remedy Performance. S. Fiorenza, J. Nyvall, and S. Lummus. Stephanie Fiorenza (BP/USA)

* New Genes for Monitoring of In Situ Remediation of Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Outdoor Mesocosm Study. M.V. Brennerova and M. Stavelova. Maria Brennerova (Czech Academy of Sciences/Czech Republic)

* New Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer Method for the Quantification of 180-Stable Isotope Probing Inorganic and Organic Phosphate Species. A. Schryer, S.D. Siciliano, and K. Bradshaw. Aimee Danielle Schryer (University of Saskatchewan/Canada)

* Practical Examples of High-Throughput DNA Sequencing Support Engineering and Policy Decisions. A. Rocha, J. Smith, and D. Graves. Duane Graves (Geosyntec Consultants, Inc./USA)

Quantification of Reductive Dehalogenase Peptides Using Multiple Reaction Monitoring Proteomics. K.H. Kucharzyk, C. Bartling, L. Mullins, J. Meisel, P. Hatzinger, F. Loeffler, J. Wilson, J. Istok, and M. Michalsen. Kate Kucharzyk (Battelle/USA)

* Use of Molecular Biological Tools and CSIA to Assess Natural Attenuation of MTBE and TBA. D. Collins, N. Longinotti, and D. Chheda. David Collins (Stantec/USA)

Using Environmental Molecular Diagnostics to Support a Rhizodegradation Closure Strategy at a Service Station Site. J. Sheldon and J. Friedman. Jack Sheldon (Antea Group/USA)

* Validation of Advanced Molecular Biological Tools for Monitoring Chlorinated Solvent Bioremediation and Estimating Degradation Rates. M.M. Michalsen, K.H. Kucharzyk, C. Bartling, L. Mullins, P. Hatzinger, F. Loeffler, J. Wilson, and J. Istok. Mandy Michalsen (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/USA)

I9. Use of Advanced Molecular Tools for Site Assessment or Remedy PerformancePlatforms Thursday | Posters (*) Wednesday EveningChairs: Dora Taggart (Microbial Insights, Inc.) and Jennifer Weidhaas (University of Utah)

Association between qPCR Analyses for Oxygenase Enzymes and Rate Constants for Cooxidation of TCE in Groundwater. J.T. Wilson, B. Wilson, D. Taggart, and D. Freedman. John Wilson (Scissortail Environmental Solutions, LLC/USA)

Comparing Reductase Enzyme Peptides to Dehalococcoides DNA as Predictors of Rates of Dechlorination of cis-DCE and VC. P. Hatzinger, M.M. Michalsen, K.H. Kucharzyk, C. Bartling, L. Mullins, F. Loeffler, J. Wilson, and J. Istok. Mandy Michalsen (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/USA)

* Comparison of Bench-Scale Environmental Molecular Diagnostics to Pilot-Scale Data during Bioremediation of 1,4-Dioxane. C. Bell, M. Heintz, Y.R. Miao, S. Mahendra, P. Gedalanga, and D. Favero. Caitlin Bell (Arcadis/USA)

* Detection of Potential Pathogenic Bacteria in Bioremediation Microbial Consortia Using Metagenomics Techniques. J. Yang and J. Park. Jihoon Yang (Yonsei University/South Korea)

* Development of Multiple Reaction Monitoring (MRM) Proteomic Assay for the Detection of Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Degradation Peptides. K.H. Kucharzyk, C. Bartling, L.A. Mullins, J. Meisel, and K. Neil. Kate Kucharzyk (Battelle/USA)

* Evaluation of Metabolomics as a Monitoring Tool at Chlorinated Solvent Sites. S.R. Campagna, F.E. Loeffler, Y. Xie, and M.M. Michalsen. Shawn Campagna (University of Tennessee/USA)

* High-Throughput Quantification of the Functional Genes Associated with RDX Degradation Using the WaferGen SmartChip Platform. J.M. Collier, B. Chai, J.R. Cole, and A.M. Cupples. Jennifer Collier (Michigan State University/USA)

* A Metagenomic Approach to Understanding Microbial Community Shifts during Reductive Dechlorination. R. Reiss, P. Guerra, and O. Makhnin. Rebecca Reiss (New Mexico Tech [Retired]/USA)

* Microbial Community Characterization at Five Chlorinated Solvent Sites Following Bioaugmentation with Dehalococcoides-Enriched Culture, SDC-9. H. Dang, Y. Kanitkar, R. Stedtfeld, S. Hashsham, A. Cupples, and P. Hatzinger. Hongyu Dang (Michigan State University/USA)

81

SHORT COURSES

SUNDAY, APRIL 8, 20188:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. (all-day)

v Sequence Stratigraphic Concepts and their Application to Conceptual Site Models and Remedial Strategies: A Hands-On Training (page 82)

v Update on Current High-Resolution Site Characterization (HRSC) Technology, 3-D Data Modeling, and Applying HRSC Data to Remedial Design (page 83)

v ITRC Training: Managing PFAS Contamination at Your Site: Site Characterization, Sampling, Fate and Transport, along with Remedial Alternatives (page 83)

v Are Advanced Molecular Biological Tools the “Next Best Thing” for Assessment of Remediation? (page 84)

8:00 a.m.-noon (half-day)

v ITRC Training: Using Groundwater Statistics and Geospatial Analysis for Remediation Optimization—An ITRC Course (page 85)

v ITRC Training: Integrated DNAPL-LNAPL Site Characterization and Tools Selection (page 86)

v Life Cycle Assessment and Green Sustainable Remediation: How to Choose and Use the Right Tool (page 87)

v Remediation of Contaminant Mass in Low-Permeability Materials (page 88)

1:00-5:00 p.m. (half-day)

v Effective Design, Construction and Maintenance of Environmental Remediation Wells (page 89)

v New ITRC Guidance: Remediation Management of Complex Sites (page 90)

v Introduction to Stakeholder Engagement: Using Social Methodology to Strengthen Your Relationships with the Public (page 90)

TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 20182:00– 6:00 p.m. (half-day)

v Accelerating Technologies to Market with Environmental Technology Verification (ISO 14304) (page 91)

v DronED: Learning on Regulatory Environments, Technology, and Data Management Solutions (page 92)

v Innovative Visualization and Modeling Methods for Optimizing In Situ Remediation (page 93)

v ITRC Training: Characterization and Remediation in Fractured Rock (page 94)

v ITRC Guidance: Bioavailability of Contaminants in Soil—Considerations for Human Health Risk Assessment (page 95)

v Natural Source Zone Depletion: New Conceptual Models and Assessment Methods (page 95)

v Stratigraphic Flux: A Method for Determining Migration Pathways at Complex Sites (page 96)

Sunday, April 8, 20188:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.(1-hour break at noon for lunch on own)

Sequence Stratigraphic Concepts and their Application to Conceptual Site Models and Remedial Strategies: A Hands-On Training

Instructors:Junaid Sadeque, Ph.D. (AECOM)Ryan Samuels, MS (AECOM)

Objective: This course will provide hands-on training on how to use environmental sequence stratigraphy to develop more accurate conceptual site models (CSMs) and remediation strategies. The potential audience includes environmental professionals and students engaged in remediation projects.

Overview: Sequence stratigraphy has arguably revolutionized stratigraphic analysis in the oil and gas industry since the 1970s, but to date, few environmental companies have utilized this power tool. Although some of us are gradually catching up with sequence stratigraphic concepts, the paradigm of lithostratigraphy is still prevalent in the environmental community. This significantly limits our ability to construct accurate CSMs and develop effective investigation/remedial strategies.

In this course, participants will be made aware of the pitfalls of lithostratigraphy and demonstrate the predictive ability of sequence stratigraphy in accurately determining contamination flow paths. Besides lecturing on the fundamental concepts, the student will be provided with ample opportunity to try out the techniques of sequence stratigraphy using real data from the environmental industry. At the end of the day, the participant will go home with a better understanding of how sequence stratigraphy can be properly implemented into investigation and remediation projects.

Outline:Introductions 1. Lecture: Impact of stratigraphy in groundwater

modeling

a. What’s wrong with lithostratigraphy?

b. Basic definitions and jargons of sequence stratigraphy

c. Exercise 1: Short discussion on concepts

2. Lecture: Stratigraphic surfaces and their recognition criteria in borehole cores and logs

a. Exercise 2: Identification of key stratigraphic surfaces

3. Lecture: Alluvial fans, channels and deltas: how to recognize in subsurface

a. Exercise 3: Identifying depositional environment in the subsurface

4. Special Guest Lecture: The role of Sequence Stratigraphy in Mass Flux calculations

5. Special Guest Lecture: Application of Sequence Stratigraphy in PFAS investigation

6. Lecture: How to correlate? Pitfalls, challenges and solutions

7. Lecture: The role of modern analogs for environmental sequence stratigraphy

a. Exercise 4: Correlation exercise using CPT logs/bore-hole data and modern analogs

Laptops are not required for this course. Colored pencils and paper for the exercises will be provided.

Register online at www.battelle.org/chlorcon.Prospective attendees should register by February 23, 2018. 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 February 23. Course registrations will be accepted as long as space is available. Registration cancellations received by February 23 will be refunded less a $50 service fee. Cancellations after February 23 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.

82

83

Sunday, April 8, 20188:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.(1-hour break at noon for lunch on own)

Update on Current High-Resolution Site Characterization (HRSC) Technology, 3-D Data Modeling, and Applying HRSC Data to Remedial Design

Instructor:John V. Fontana, PG (Vista GeoScience)Daniel Pipp (Geoprobe Systems)

Objective: This course will review the current state of technology regarding direct-push subsurface imaging tools, including: the membrane interface probe (MIP), low-level MIP, electrical conductivity (EC), hydraulic profiler tool (HPT), combined tools (MiHPT), and the new optical image profiler (OIP) tool for identifying nonaqueouse-phase liquid (NAPL) fluorescence. The course is intended for environmental consultants, professionals and regulators who want to design/plan HRSC surveys, enhance their interpretation of the resulting data logs, conduct data quality reviews, examine 3-D models, and then apply the data to remedial site characterization and design projects.

Overview: Over the past 20 years, site characterization has benefited from the development of direct-push enabled subsurface investigation tools such as the electrical conductivity (EC) probe, hydraulic profiler tool (HPT), and membrane interface probe (MIP). These tools have been around for several years, and in recent years, have advanced to include the low-level MIP tool (LL-MIP), combined tools (MiHPT), and the new optical image profiler (OIP) tool for identifying NAPL fluorescence. A single probe can now log three or more chemical sensors, soil conductivity, hydraulic pressure and flow, hydraulic conductivity, all in a single borehole push. In addition, these tools have become significantly more robust over recent years, enabling greater productivity. Data are collected at a vertical density of 20 data points per foot of borehole, so the vertical resolution is indeed high. Highly detailed logs of these data provide insight and resolution that cannot be seen in the physical examination of a core, or from three laboratory samples from the same core. Today’s inexpensive computer power allows us to input and process hundreds of thousands of data points into a complex 3-D model, giving us the ability to finally peer underground, and see “what is going on.” The course will review the current state of the technology, including new tools, recent advancements, and how to obtain and review quality control data from a service provider. It will also cover data interpretation, and important considerations

when creating 3-D models of these data, and how to interpret these models. Finally, the course will cover applications for initial and supplemental site characterization projects, and remedial design projects.

Outline:1. Review of HRSC technology. EC, MIP, LL-MIP,

HPT, and OIP: How they work and what they tell us

2. Chemical sensor instrumentation and the MIP tool: Identifying VOCs

3. Optical imaging profiler: A new UV fluorescence tool for LNAPL identification, and other potential applications

4. Soil and groundwater (hydrogeologic) characteristics using the data from the EC and HPT tools

5. Digging into the data using the Geoprobe’s DI Viewer Software

6. Interpreting Logs: How to interpret combined responses from all the different sensor data

7. Quality Control: What to ask for, how to review it, and how to interpret it.

8. 3-D Models: Putting log data into 3-D model software. How to properly render data into meaningful images

9. Some really cool examples of what HRSC data can reveal such as finding confined LNAP below the water table, mapping a methane plume from a gas line release or landfill

10. How to acquire and apply HRSC data for initial site investigations, supplemental data, and remedial design

Laptops are required for this course.

Sunday, April 8, 20188:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.(1-hour break at noon for lunch on own)

ITRC Training: Managing PFAS Contamination at Your Site: Site Characterization, Sampling, Fate and Transport, along with Remedial Alternatives

Instructors:Robert Mueller, M.S. (New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection)Christopher Higgins, Ph.D. (Colorado School of Mines)William DiGuiseppi, PG (CH2M Hill)Dora Chiang, Ph.D., P.E. (AECOM)Stewart Abrams, P.E. (Langan Engineering)Virginia Yingling (Minnesota Department of Health)

Objective: Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are an emerging group of contaminants that present unique issues with site characterization, sampling and analysis, fate and transport, and remedial alternatives. Regulators, site managers, facility owners, consultants, technology developers, and other stakeholders will all benefit from this state-of-the-art presentation.

Overview: In 2017, the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) assembled a team of over 300 PFAS experts drawn from industry, academia, state and federal agencies, consulting, and the U.S. departments of defense and energy. This team developed six fact sheets that provide an overview on PFAS naming conventions, sources and uses, regulatory trends, site characterization, fate and transport, and treatment technologies; these will form the basis of this training. The training will begin with an overview of PFAS in the environment, then will concentrate on three key elements for characterizing and managing PFAS-impacted sites—site characterization (including sampling and analysis), complex mechanisms that impact fate and transport, and current and potential remediation technologies. The trainers will present the recommended approaches that should be taken once PFAS contamination is identified.

PFAS in the Environment—PFAS is a family of chemicals that may include as many as 3000+ compounds. The sources and general chemistry of those PFAS thought to be the most environmentally relevant will be highlighted and current knowledge regarding their potential ecological and human health risks will be presented. Precursors that degrade to ecologically important PFAS also will be considered

Site Characterization—What are the unique aspects of PFAS that pose challenges to getting good site data? This section will cover:

• Sampling Procedures: This element introduces state-of-the-art knowledge on proper sampling techniques, sample preparation procedures and transport to the laboratory. The most recent research will be presented to prepare attendees to acquire the best data for their site, while avoiding false positives and false negatives.

• Laboratory Procedures: A description of the various laboratory analytical techniques will be presented along with guidance on interpretation of results.

• Data Accuracy: Common cross contamination and other issues that can be frequently encountered during sampling and laboratory analysis which unduly bias selection of management actions.

Fate and Transport—How do PFAS move in air, soil, groundwater, and surface water? What are the unique PFAS transport mechanisms that complicate creating a conceptual site model (CSM)? How does the presence of precursors affect the CSM? All of these elements will be presented to help understand these contaminants in the environment.

Treatment & Remediation—Proven treatment and remediation approaches for PFAS are still largely limited to separation and destruction technologies, which will be presented individually. The potential approaches for combining technologies to increase technical and economic feasibility also will be evaluated. Design considerations and performance evaluation will be presented for those technologies that are proven and demonstrated. Current research in emerging (but not yet field-proven) remediation technologies also will be introduced. Case studies will be presented that demonstrate how each of these elements can be applied in the field.

Outline:1. Overview of the ITRC PFAS team describing the

six fact sheets and current team work products in development.

2. Overview of PFAS in the environment

3. Site charaterization

4. Sampling of air, water, soil, and biota

5. Laboratory analyses

6. Fate and transport

7. Treatment and remediation technologies

8. Further research needs

Laptops are not required for this course.

Sunday, April 8, 20188:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.(1-hour break at noon for lunch on own)

Are Advanced Molecular Biological Tools the “Next Best Thing” for Assessment of Remediation?

Instructors:Kate Kucharzyk, Ph.D. (Battelle)Dora Taggart (Microbial Insights)Frank Loeffler, Ph.D. (University of Tennessee and ORNL)Robert Hettich, Ph.D. (ORNL)Mandy Michalsen, Ph.D., P.E. (USACE)John Wilson (Scissortail Environmental Solutions, LLC)Rebecca Reiss, Ph.D. (New Mexico Tech)Heather Rectanus, Ph.D., P.E. (Battelle)

84

85

Objective: The objective of this course is to present information on the advanced molecular biological tools (MBTs) such as metagenomic sequencing, shotgun and targeted proteomics and their application in monitoring of contaminant degradation. The potential audience includes environmental professionals, state and federal regulators and commercial clients who are interested to learn more about the basics of the analyses, application and data interpretation for assessment of contaminant degradation at their sites.

Overview: Use of MBTs for quantification and detection of biomarkers, especially DNA, proteins and lipids, in environmental samples has been rapidly increasing over the last few decades. MBTs are being used by remediation professionals to aid remedial design, assess remedial performance, and perform long-term monitoring of biologically-based degradation technologies. The goal of MBT application is measuring temporal and special changes of microorganisms and their activity. The quantitative level of information is invaluable to understand and interpret contaminant biodegradation.

Conventional MBTs typically used in microbial diagnostics include quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and microarrays. qPCR provides information on the abundance of target organisms and specific genes. Genes commonly identified using this technique typically are the functional genes responsible for the production of enzymes that can break down the contaminant of interest. qPCR can therefore determine if the organisms responsible for biodegradation are abundant and if the potential for biotic MNA pathways exist at a site.

Most recent efforts have extended genome-based science by large-scale genome sequencing, often called metagenomics, which provides insight into whole community sequence information on microbial members from various ecological niches. Integration of metaproteomics or whole community proteomics seeks to identify functional expression of the metagenome and gives a snapshot of community metabolic activities at the moment of sampling. While metagenomic sequencing can define the microbial and/or gene composition and inform about the potential molecular machinery, it does not reveal details on its actual function. Metaproteomics provides the most direct measure of microbial activity. It allows detection of proteins of interest, providing information on molecular processes utilized by microorganisms to sustain the metabolic processes required for life. These two techniques represent the cutting-edge of experimental genome science and each are rapidly developing.

As additional research is realized, integration of metagenomic and metaproteomics may one day provide the ability to derive in situ rate estimates from quantifiable biomarker measurements. This could eliminate the need to collect time series concentration data to model and calculate attenuation rates, and foster a predictive understanding of plume development and contaminant longevity. In future applications, employing these analyses may provide quantitative information about the abundance and activity of relevant microorganisms in one assay, monitor changes in response to treatment over time, and may correlate quantitative molecular analyses with in situ contaminant degradation rates. All of this knowledge taken together will feed into long-term management strategies and facilitate site closure.

Outline:Opening statements1. Conventional MBTs (qPCR) versus metagenomics

2. Advanced MBTs

3. Microarrays and metatranscriptomics

4. Discovery proteomic

5. MRM proteomics

6. Integrated approach to estimating degradation rates using MBTs

7. Utility of MBTs in environmental projects: case studies

Laptops are not required for this course.

Sunday, April 8, 20188:00 a.m.–noon

ITRC Training: Using Groundwater Statistics and Geospatial Analysis for Remediation Optimization – An ITRC Course

Instructors:Harold Templin, LPG (Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management)Chris Stubbs, Ph.D., P.E. (Ramboll Environ)Lizanne Simmons, PG (Kleinfelder)Randall Ryti, Ph.D. (Neptune and Company, Inc.)Edward Winner, Ph.D. (Kentucky Dept. for Environmental Protection)David Becker (USACOE)

Sunday, May 22, 2016

8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.

(1-hour break at noon for lunch on own)

Innovative Visualization and Modeling Tools for Improving Remediation

EfficiencyInstructors:

Grant R. Carey, Ph.D., P.Eng. (Porewater Solutions)

Larry Deschaine, Ph.D. (HGL)

Objective: Provide information on innovative visualization and modeling tools that

may be employed at complex sites to design or improve the performance of NAPL

and groundwater remediation (including natural attenuation). This course is intended

for practitioners and regulators who specialize in site remediation.

Overview: Remediation of NAPL source zones requires an integrated approach that

also considers downgradient plume response, and potential limitations in remediation

benefit due to back-diffusion from silt and clay layers. It is important to balance

source treatment costs with anticipated benefits in risk reduction / mass discharge

in the downgradient plume. This course provides an overview of several new public

domain (FREE) visualization and modeling tools that have been developed to

support the feasibility analysis, design, and optimization of integrated site remedies

including:• VisualBioTM —a new visualization tool based on a modified radial diagram method.

VisualBioTM may be used to visualize where biodegradation is occurring in

groundwater based on redox indicator and parent / daughter product trends.

This tool makes it easier for regulators, consultants, and the public to understand

multiple lines of evidence supporting MNA or enhanced bioremediation.

• NAPL Depletion Model (NDM)—a screening tool for evaluating the relative

timeframes for NAPL source zone natural and enhanced attenuation. In addition,

NDM may be used to provide input to solute transport models (e.g., REMCHLOR

or ISR-MT3DMS), or for conducting a forensic analysis that helps refine the

understanding of NAPL architecture at a specific site.

• In Situ Remediation (ISR-MT3DMSTM )—a sophisticated 3D reactive transport

model for modeling natural and enhanced attenuation of chlorinated solvents,

petroleum hydrocarbons, and metals such as hexavalent chromium. ISR-MT3DMSTM

uses a novel local domain approach which reduces the computational burden

of simulating back-diffusion in 3D models. ISR-MT3DMSTM includes the flexible

geochemical reaction framework from BioRedox-MT3DMS for simulating oxidation,

reduction, and cometabolic degradation, as well as mineral precipitation and

dissolution reactions. Mineral species may be represented, including magnetite

and multiple iron minerals with their influence on the abiotic degradation of

chlorinated solvents. Stimulation or inhibition of degradation rates may also be

simulated.

This course also includes a review of mathematical approaches and software for

Physics-Based Management Optimization (PBMOTM ) of in situ remediation cost and

performance.

Objective: This course will present groundwater statistical methods and geospatial analyses as a tool to evaluate remediation optimization opportunities. State regulators and other practitioners, including stakeholders will benefit from gaining greater confidence using groundwater statistics and geospatial analysis for remediation optimization.

Overview: Statistical techniques may be used throughout the process of cleaning up contaminated sites to give an amount of certainty to decisions and provide opportunities to optimize remediation activities. It is challenging for practitioners, who are not experts in statistics, to interpret and use statistical techniques. This short course is specifically for environmental project managers who review or use statistical calculations for reports, or make recommendations or decisions based on statistics. The class will encourage and support project managers and others who are not statisticians to apply key aspects of the statistical approach to groundwater data and to answer common questions on monitoring optimization.

This short course will also introduce geospatial analysis approach to support remediation optimization. Unlike traditional statistical analysis, geospatial methods incorporate the spatial and temporal dependence between nearby data points, which is an important feature of almost all data collected as part of an environmental investigation. The results of geospatial analyses add lines of evidence for decision making about optimization opportunities in environmental sites across all project life cycle stages in all media for different sizes and types of sites. Through this course, project managers can use geospatial analysis to assess optimization opportunities by evaluating available data and site needs to determine if geospatial analyses are appropriate for a given site, identifying optimization questions where geospatial methods can contribute to better decision making through selection of appropriate geospatial method(s) and software, and explaining what the results mean for better decision making.

This short course is based on the ITRC’s Remediation Process Optimization: Identifying Opportunities for Enhanced and More Efficient Site Remediation (RPO-1, 2004, http://itrcweb.org/GuidanceDocuments/RPO-1.pdf) guidance document, and Groundwater Statistics and Monitoring Compliance (GSMC-1, 2013, http://www.itrcweb.org/gsmc-1) and Geospatial Analysis for Optimization at Environmental Sites (GRO-1, 2016, http://gro-1.itrcweb.org/) web-based guidance documents.

Outline:1. Introduction

a. Opportunities to Apply Statistics and Geospatial Analysis in Optimization

b. Getting Ready to Apply Statistics

c. Fundamentals of Geospatial Methods

2. How to Apply Optimization Questions for: Monitoring, Site Characterization, Remediation, and Closure

a. Application Examples

b. How to Use the GSMC Document and Putting GRO into Practice

Laptops are not required for this course.

Sunday, April 8, 20188:00 a.m.–noon

ITRC Training: Integrated DNAPL-LNAPL Site Characterization and Tool Selection

Instructors:Michael B. Smith (Vermont Dept. of Environmental Conservation)Naji Akladiss, P.E. (Maine Department of Environmental Protection)Tamzen W. Macbeth, PhD, P.E. (CDM Smith)Ryan Wymore, P.E. (CDM Smith)Heather Rectanus, Ph.D, P.E. (Battelle)

Objective: This workshop will present the ITRC guidance document of this same title. The workshop will focus on recent advances in the understanding of NAPL contaminant fate and transport, and introduce the ITRC’s Integrated Site Characterization approach, including the importance of high-resolution characterization. The potential audience is all environmental professionals, including regulators, site owners, consultants, and stakeholders.

Overview: Sites contaminated with NAPLs present significant environmental challenges and have proven to be recalcitrant to remediation, especially where sites have been contaminated with DNAPLs. This workshop will begin by presenting the new NAPL conceptual site model (CSM). Our industry can no longer address NAPL and dissolved phase contamination separately, but rather they need to be considered together. Experience gained at these sites has driven us to update overall our understanding of NAPL and dissolved phase contamination. This includes the controlling role of small geologic heterogeneities on the fate and transport of NAPL and associated dissolved phase contamination.

86

Sunday, May 22, 2016

8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.

(1-hour break at noon for lunch on own)

Innovative Visualization and Modeling Tools for Improving Remediation

EfficiencyInstructors:

Grant R. Carey, Ph.D., P.Eng. (Porewater Solutions)

Larry Deschaine, Ph.D. (HGL)

Objective: Provide information on innovative visualization and modeling tools that

may be employed at complex sites to design or improve the performance of NAPL

and groundwater remediation (including natural attenuation). This course is intended

for practitioners and regulators who specialize in site remediation.

Overview: Remediation of NAPL source zones requires an integrated approach that

also considers downgradient plume response, and potential limitations in remediation

benefit due to back-diffusion from silt and clay layers. It is important to balance

source treatment costs with anticipated benefits in risk reduction / mass discharge

in the downgradient plume. This course provides an overview of several new public

domain (FREE) visualization and modeling tools that have been developed to

support the feasibility analysis, design, and optimization of integrated site remedies

including:• VisualBioTM —a new visualization tool based on a modified radial diagram method.

VisualBioTM may be used to visualize where biodegradation is occurring in

groundwater based on redox indicator and parent / daughter product trends.

This tool makes it easier for regulators, consultants, and the public to understand

multiple lines of evidence supporting MNA or enhanced bioremediation.

• NAPL Depletion Model (NDM)—a screening tool for evaluating the relative

timeframes for NAPL source zone natural and enhanced attenuation. In addition,

NDM may be used to provide input to solute transport models (e.g., REMCHLOR

or ISR-MT3DMS), or for conducting a forensic analysis that helps refine the

understanding of NAPL architecture at a specific site.

• In Situ Remediation (ISR-MT3DMSTM )—a sophisticated 3D reactive transport

model for modeling natural and enhanced attenuation of chlorinated solvents,

petroleum hydrocarbons, and metals such as hexavalent chromium. ISR-MT3DMSTM

uses a novel local domain approach which reduces the computational burden

of simulating back-diffusion in 3D models. ISR-MT3DMSTM includes the flexible

geochemical reaction framework from BioRedox-MT3DMS for simulating oxidation,

reduction, and cometabolic degradation, as well as mineral precipitation and

dissolution reactions. Mineral species may be represented, including magnetite

and multiple iron minerals with their influence on the abiotic degradation of

chlorinated solvents. Stimulation or inhibition of degradation rates may also be

simulated.

This course also includes a review of mathematical approaches and software for

Physics-Based Management Optimization (PBMOTM ) of in situ remediation cost and

performance.

87

Properties of NAPLs and associated aqueous, sorbed, and vapor phase contamination, and how they partition throughout the subsurface will be presented. Mechanisms that control the flow of NAPLs in the subsurface including solubility, capillary entry pressure, saturation and residual saturation, wettability and interfacial tension will be discussed. The workshop will present the DNAPL life cycle models of “higher” solubility DNAPLs such as chlorinated solvents, and the “lower” solubility DNAPLs such as coal tars and creosotes. The latest characterization approaches for sites contaminated with LNAPLs will also be presented.

A detailed module describing the objectives-based integrated site characterization (ISC) process that will both clarify how to collect appropriate scale data, and what types of data are collected with an emphasis on geology where appropriate will be presented as well as how to manage, analyze, and integrate the large geological-hydrogeological and contaminant databases that can be developed using the ISC approach.

A live demonstration will be given of the ITRC site characterization tools table that will help guide site characterization efforts as a resource that will represent many characterization tools, what they are used for, how geology affects tool choices, and references to more information on the tools.

Outline:1. Introduction

2. NAPL Site Conceptual Model

3. Effect of NAPL Types and Properties on Contaminant Fate and Transport

4. NAPL Presence, Fate, and Transport

5. 14 Compartment Model

6. DNAPL Life Cycle

7. Integrated Site Characterization Process: Planning, Tools Selection, Implementation/Update CSM

8. Present an Interactive Tools Table

Laptops are not required for this course.

Sunday, April 8, 20188:00 a.m.–noon

Life Cycle Assessment and Green Sustainable Remediation: How to Choose and Use the Right Tool

Instructors:Andrew D. Henderson, Ph.D. (Noblis, Inc.)Michael S. Bruckner, MS, LCACP (Noblis, Inc.)

Objective: Remediation professionals are faced with a number of tools that can be used to integrate sustainability considerations into remediation programs. This course will provide participants with A) an overview of how these tools quantify the sustainability of remediation approaches, B) strategies to choose among these tools, and C) an overview of how to access and apply the tools using case studies of chlorinated site remediation.

Overview: Regulatory and public pressures are increasing demands for avoiding negative impacts from site cleanup. ITRC Technical/Regulatory Guidance provides a variety of approaches to assess and minimize these impacts, including green and sustainable remediation (GSR) and life cycle assessment (LCA). Given variations in stakeholder needs, regulatory demands, site variability, and the developing nature of the sustainability field, practitioners need to able to choose the correct tool for the job and apply that tool efficiently.

SiteWise™ and Spreadsheets for Environmental Footprint Analysis (SEFA) are two GSR tools; LCA is a broader method for sustainability but requires training and often the use of specialty software. When used properly, and matched to concrete goals, such tools can create economic, environmental, and social win-win situations. This course will discuss the theory underpinning quantified sustainability, as well as explore the strengths and weaknesses of the following tools (note that this list focuses on publicly available software and data). Participants in the course will gain a conceptual understanding of possible approaches, strategies to select the appropriate tool to evaluate sustainability, and hands-on experience applying these tools.

• SiteWise™ (the Navy, the Army Corps of Engineers, and Battelle)

• Spreadsheets for Environmental Footprint Analysis (SEFA) (USEPA)

• Sustainability Analysis Scoring Factors (the Department of Defense)

• openLCA (open source LCA software + publicly available data)

• USEtox (open source LCA software for estimating impact from chemical releases)

• Social-LCA (applying approaches from United Nations Environmental Programme [UNEP] to remediation)

Outline:1. Introduction and course goals

2. Why would we quantify sustainability of remediation?

a. Regulatory and other drivers

3. How do we quantify sustainability?

a. Relative versus absolute sustainability

b. Metrics for quantification

4. Existing approaches for assessing remediation

a. GSR: SiteWise™, SEFA

b. LCA: openLCA

c. LCA-derived tools:

i. Scoring Factors

ii. USEtox

iii. Social-LCA

5. Case studies and class exercises

a. Discussion of lessons learned during case studies

6. Summary and discussion

Laptops are required for this course.

Sunday, April 8, 20188:00 a.m.–noon

Remediation of Contaminant Mass in Low-Permeability Materials

Instructors:James Wang, Ph.D., P.E. (Geosyntec)Bill Slack, Ph.D., P.E. (FRx, Inc.)Gary Wealthall, Ph.D. (Geosyntec)Steffen Nielsen (TerraTherm, Inc.)David Gent, Ph.D., P.E. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)

Objective: This short course will provide information specifically related to remediation in low-permeability materials (e.g., clay and fractured rock), including modeling and conceptual site model development for remedial design, as well as remediation technologies suitable for such challenging materials. The potential audience includes environmental site/program managers, regulators, and remediation practitioners.

Overview: Instructors will cover topics related to challenges and benefits of remediating contaminant sources in low-permeability materials, including development of a conceptual site model (CSM) supporting remedial design, as well as processes and applications of several in situ remediation technologies particularly suitable for these challenging materials.

The life-cycle of a CSM demands iterative improvement of understanding as the project proceeds, based on systematic procedures. Data gap assessment and uncertainty analysis are the structural elements in the life-cycle of a CSM, and proper management of these CSM elements is particularly challenging and critical for sites with low-permeability zones. The course will examine some pitfalls in evolution of the CSM life-cycle and present examples of CSMs that have been developed to meet the design, implementation and performance assessment of increasingly sophisticated remedial technologies. Tools for quantifying contaminant mass and phase partitioning with focus on low-permeability geology will also be discussed.

Various environmental fracturing technologies have been demonstrated to effectively facilitate in situ remediation of low-permeability materials. The mechanisms, techniques, and applications of environmental fracturing will be discussed, including the current spectrum of proppant materials, fracture emplacement methodologies, and remedial applications.

An in-depth explanation of several thermal technologies will be provided, including thermal conductive heating (TCH), steam-enhanced extraction (SEE), and electrical resistive heating (ERH), which are often considered as effective alternatives for low-permeability materials and bedrock. Remedial design approaches and tools, as well as guidelines for evaluating strengths and weaknesses of each technology with considerations of challenging site conditions will be presented.

Electrokinetic (EK) transport of remediation amendments in the subsurface relies on ion migration and electroosmosis, which are electrochemical mechanisms relatively independent of soil’s hydraulic conductivities. Therefore, EK transport can achieve effective distribution of select amendments in low-permeability and heterogeneous subsurface formations. The course will present the fundamentals of EK technology, its engineering implementation, and example projects.

88

89

Outline:1. Overview of challenges and benefits of

addressing contaminant sources in low- permeability materials;

2. Conceptual site model development for sites with low-permeability zones;

3. Modeling of low-permeability and complex geology to support remedial design;

4. Fracturing-facilitated in situ remediation;

5. Electrokinetic-enhanced delivery of amendments for in situ remediation; and

6. In situ thermal remediation technologies.

Laptops are not required for this course.

Sunday, April 8, 20181:00 p.m.–5:00 p.m.

Effective Design, Construction and Maintenance of Environmental Remediation Wells

Instructors:Fred Payne, Ph.D. (Arcadis)Marc Killingstad, P.E. (Arcadis)Jay Erickson, PG (Arcadis)

Objective: The objective of this course is to provide information and guidance to attendees on the design, installation, and maintenance of effective groundwater extraction and injection wells (i.e., environmental remediation wells) to achieve maximum performance during remediation of impacted soil and groundwater and to lower life cycle costs. The primary audience will be environmental professionals but the course will also be of significant interest to state and federal regulators as well as private- and public-sector stakeholders who are vested in cleanup efforts of contaminated sites where environmental remediation wells are employed as part of the overall strategy.

Overview: Groundwater extraction and injection wells (broadly, environmental remediation wells) are utilized at many groundwater remediation sites. For most sites, these wells require significant investments. If they are properly designed, constructed, and maintained, they can perform at a high level for many years, ultimately reducing remedial time frames and project life cycle costs. Meanwhile, inadequate design, construction, and maintenance can generate a significant additional cost burden for projects through high operating costs, premature replacements, and extended remedial time frames.

While our overall approach and underlying principles are generally based on those employed by the drinking water supply industry, environmental remediation well design and construction requirements are different. The primary difference, relative to the water supply industry, is that environmental remediation wells are often required to perform in less than ideal conditions—very poor and oftentimes unfavorable water quality and hydrogeologic conditions.

Clearly, implementation of any in situ soil and groundwater remedy under such adverse conditions is going to be critically dependent on the use of remediation wells to support both extraction of contaminated groundwater and/or injection of reagents (or treated water). Therefore, the importance of high-quality environmental remediation well design, installation, and maintenance cannot be overstated.

Based on collective experience acquired over many years, a methodology has been developed which has been proven to result in high quality environmental remediation wells. Whether they are intended for extraction or injection, the primary goal of the design, installation, and maintenance approach is to establish and maintain a free-flowing connection (i.e., maximum hydraulic communication) between the well and aquifer to effectively advance remediation of contaminated groundwater.

Outline:1. Purpose: Present systematic approach to design,

construct and maintain high-quality environmental remediation wells considering optimal performance and life cycle costs

a. Differences: Water Supply versus Remediation

b. Life Cycle Costs

2. Well Design Components

a. Requirements

b. Aquifer Setting

c. Life Expectancy

d. Maintenance/Access

e. Materials/Compatibility

3. Well Installation

a. Drilling Methods

b. Pilot Hole/Screening

c. Well Components

d. Well Development

4. Well Maintenance

a. Purpose/Importance

b. Proactive versuss Reactive

c. Processes Affecting Performance

d. Metric/Performance Tracking

e. Re-development/Rehabilitation

Laptops are not required for this course.

Sunday, April 8, 20181:00 p.m.–5:00 p.m.

New ITRC Guidance: Remediation Management of Complex Sites

Instructors:Rula A. Deeb, Ph.D., BCEEM (Geosyntec Consultants)Carl Spreng (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment)John Price (Washington State Department of Ecology)David Alden, P.E. (Tersus Environmental)Charles Newell, Ph.D. (GSI Environmental)

Objective: This course will provide a framework based on adaptive site management principles for remediation management of complex sites. It will also identify and integrate technical and nontechnical challenges into site objectives, remediation approach, and develop a performance-based action plan to guide long-term management. This training will interest state and federal regulators at complex sites, environmental professionals, and public and tribal stakeholders.

Overview: At some sites, complex site-specific conditions make it difficult to fully remediate environmental contamination. Both technical and nontechnical challenges can impede remediation and may prevent a site from achieving federal- and state-mandated regulatory cleanup goals within a reasonable time frame. For example, technical challenges may include geologic, hydrogeologic, geochemical, and contaminant-related conditions as well as large-scale or surface conditions. In addition, nontechnical challenges may also play a role such as managing changes that occur over long time frames, overlapping regulatory and financial responsibilities between agencies, setting achievable site objectives, maintaining effective institutional controls, redevelopment and changes in land use, and funding considerations.

This short course and associated ITRC guidance, Remediation Management of Complex Sites, provide a recommended process for remediation management at complex sites, termed “adaptive site management”. Adaptive site management is a comprehensive, flexible, and iterative process of remediation management that is well-suited for complex sites, where there is significant uncertainty in remedy performance predictions. Adaptive site management includes periodically evaluating and adjusting the remedial approach, which may involve multiple technologies at any one time and changes in technologies over time. Comprehensive planning and scheduled periodic evaluations of remedy performance help decision makers track remedy progress and improve the timeliness of remedy optimization, reevaluations, or transition to other technologies/contingency actions.

Participants will learn how to apply the guidance to improve decision making and remediation management at complex sites. The guidance is intended to benefit a variety of site decision makers, including regulators, responsible parties and their consultants, and public and tribal stakeholders. Case studies will be used to describe real-world applications of remediation and remediation management at complex sites.

Outline:1. Introduction

2. Site challenges

3. Remediation potential assessment

4. Adaptive remedy selection

5. Long-term management

6. Interactive Q&A session

Laptops are not required for this course.

Sunday, April 8, 20181:00 p.m.–5:00 p.m.

Introduction to Stakeholder Engagement: Using Social Methodology to Strengthen Your Relationships with the Public

Instructors:Reanne Ridsdale, M.A., B.A., Ph.D. Candidate (Ryerson University)Melissa Ann Harclerode, Ph.D., ENV SP (CDM Smith)

Objective: Navigating the world of social impact assessment and stakeholder collaboration can be difficult, vague, and views can often be polarizing,

90

91

however, with proper methodology and guidance, meaningful engagement can enhance project outcomes, streamline processes, and create trusting partnerships among stakeholders. Participants will learn the current state-of-the-art methods and processes for conducting meaningful stakeholder engagement with an opportunity to practice using vetted tools. The potential audience includes environmental professionals, regulators, potentially responsible parties (PRPs), community members, and other stakeholders (such as property developers and non-profit interest groups).

Overview: Engaging public opinion on projects is a large and complicated task. In order to understand the best course of action, practitioners will need to gain an understanding of stakeholder context. There are various complex socio-political and socio-economic barriers to meaningful engagement. Understanding the context of affected stakeholders by the remediation project, practitioners can better collaborate on which method would be most effective for engagement, and how to implement that process.

Through the process of understanding stakeholder context of the site, and through meaningful engagement, a complex remediation project may lead to a revitalization in the community, which may result in an increased perception of urban sustainability, increased tax base for the municipality, gentrification of older neighborhoods, and improvements in quality of life through ecological restoration.

This course will focus on a broad overview of stakeholder engagement and social methodologies that can help practitioners and proponents in project decision making. The course will outline the role, purpose, and benefit of stakeholder engagement, touch upon the role of risk perception of impacted community members, and provide engagement planning and societal impact assessment tools. The course will go from background and theory to case studies and testing live tools. Breakout sessions will be comprised of: (1) utilizing multi-criteria decision analysis for identifying project sustainability objectives and remedy performance metrics; (2) a walk through of a community involvement plan; and (3) charrette to incorporate stakeholder needs into site end use.

Most projects require some sort of stakeholder engagement as required by international, federal, state/provincial, and municipal law. Understanding the methods and processes that are required for stakeholder engagement, will greatly benefit your project outcomes, ability to tender, and your

company’s reputation. This course is applicable to many practitioners and is a great entry level course for engineers and scientists. No social science background is needed.

Outline:1. Familiarize remediation practitioners with the

concept of meaningful stakeholder engagement and understanding socio-cultural contexts of project participants.

a. Background to stakeholder engagement;

b. Understanding barriers to participation;

c. Understanding the role of urban sustainability.

2. A hands on introduction to social engagement tools that will assist:

a. in identifying stakeholder groups;

b. aid in selecting sustainable indicators;

c. overview of current tools and methodology

d. walk through of a community involvement plan;

e. perform two assessments;

f. help in selecting an acceptable remedy, and;

g. have input for future land use design.

Laptops are not required for this course.

Tuesday, April 10, 20182:00-6:00 p.m.

Accelerating Technologies to Market with Environmental Technology Verification (ISO 14304)

Instructors:John Neate, BSc, MES (VerifiGlobal)Amy Dindal, PMP (Battelle)

Objective: The objective of this course is to present the new ISO 14034 standard, including principles, procedures, and benefits of environmental technology verification (ETV) and how this can facilitate market acceptance and regulatory approval of innovative technologies. The targeted audience includes technology developers, vendors, solution providers and clean-tech investors, as well as technology buyers, users, managers, regulators, and agencies.

Overview: The new ISO 14034 ETV standard, published in November 2016, provides a specified

framework for the evaluation of environmental technologies. The process outlined in the standard provides legitimacy to third-party verification of environmental technology performance claims.

Use of the standard offers the following benefits:

• Robust verification: A functional quality-assured process for technology performance verification, supported by effective testing and verification protocols;

• Reciprocity and acceptance: Effective engagement of stakeholders and other interested parties when identifying relevant performance parameters, with greater potential for reciprocity and acceptance of test methods, performance data and verification results across multiple jurisdictions;

• Market adoption: Accelerated market adoption of verified technologies by a broader range of users across different sectors, particularly when considering proposed solutions and potential outcomes that involve trade-offs and risks.

For the ‘clean-tech’ industry and environmental technology companies, independent verification based on the ISO 14034 ETV standard provides credible evidence that technologies perform as claimed, which helps convince potential clients, as well as regulators, of the legitimacy and value of these verified technologies.

For industries and governments that require technologies to prevent, control and remediate pollution, and/or improve environmental performance, independent verification based on the ISO 14034 ETV standard provides credible performance information, which informs choices and helps justify decisions.

Illustrative examples of how ISO 14034 is being applied will be provided.

Outline:Part 1: Introduction to ISO 14034 and Its Benefits

1. What is independent technology performance verification and how does it differ from other technology evaluation processes?

2. What is the ISO 14034 standard and why is it useful?

3. How can ISO 14034 verification be used to support transparent, evidence-based decisions and value-based procurement?

4. How can ISO 14034 verification assist in gaining market acceptance and approval?

5. How can ISO 14034 help technology companies access international markets?z

Part 2: ISO 14034 Process Requirements

1. Who conducts performance testing and verification and what are the specific roles and responsibilities?

2. What are the conformity requirements when conducting performance testing and verification in accordance with ISO 14034?

3. What needs to be considered when specifying the performance parameters for a verification plan in accordance with ISO 14034?

4. What needs to be considered when conducting performance testing in order to generate verifiable performance data?

5. How can stakeholder expectations be managed to achieve positive performance verification outcomes?

Laptops are not required for this course.

Tuesday, April 10, 20182:00-6:00 p.m.

DronED: Learning on Regulatory Environments, Technology, and Data Management Solutions

Instructors:Jeffrey Popiel (Geotech Environmental Equipment, Inc.)Paul Eaton (Geotech Environmental Equipment, Inc.)Andrew Lindemann (Geotech Environmental Equipment, Inc.)Rob Rebel, P.E. (LT Environmental)

Objective: Rapidly advancing technology has made it possible to employ pilotless aircraft “drones” for commercial operations. This workshop will provide facility managers, engineers, and professionals with information on navigating regulatory environments, and how drones enhance safety by eliminating the need to employ people at height, in remote, hazardous or toxic environments.

Overview: This course examines the fundamental concepts and techniques of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the environmental industry. An effective pilot must understand: airspace, weather, human factors, risk, and general avionics. In addition, the class examines the variations of UAS technologies and future technologies along with the types of sensors that are used and how. Special consideration will be given to understanding how the technology can be applied in the field with first hand case study examples and review of the most common field challenges while evaluating how to

92

93

overcome them. Furthermore, the benefits of using UAS, their cost, and resource saving abilities will be explored.

Outline:1. Regulatory

a. Part 107

i. Airspace where UAS are operated

ii. Aerodynamics: Review on the nature of avionics

iii. Weather: Review on how environmental factors affect flight

iv. Human Factors: Mental and physical state of a remote pilot

2. Hardware

a. Various platform technologies: multi-rotor, helicopter, fixed wing

b. Remote sensors: RGB, Thermal, MultiSpectral, Communications, LiDAR

3. Data Management

a. Storage: cloud versus hard drive

4. Business Case

a. Insurance, Hardware Costs, Software, Staff, etc.

5. Case Study Examples

a. Brownfields redevelopment environmenal site survey, Denver, Colorado

b. Infrastructure mapping at an industrial site, Weld County, Colorado

c. Engineering design and operations plan development for an oilfield truckwash, Fort Lupton, Colorado.

Laptops are not required for this course.

Tuesday, April 10, 20182:00-6:00 p.m.

Innovative Visualization and Modeling Methods for Optimizing In Situ Remediation

Instructors:Grant R. Carey, Ph.D., P.E. (Porewater Solutions)Larry M. Deschaine, Ph.D., P.E. (HGL)

Objective: This course will demonstrate innovative new methods that can be used to optimize in situ remediation based on real-world case studies. This course is intended for practitioners and regulators involved with site remediation. A modeling background is not required for this course.

Overview: Specific topics in this short course include:• Using mass flux/mass discharge to define

attainable goals for in situ remediation, based on a meta survey of numerous case study sites.

• Use of a radial diagram visualization method and free Visual Bio software to delineate where biodegradation is occurring in groundwater.

• Use of a simple (and free) nonaqueous-phase liquid (NAPL) depletion model for supporting source zone natural attenuation remedies, and for estimating remediation timeframe of various technologies used to enhance NAPL dissolution rates, including case studies at both LNAPL and DNAPL sites.

• Review of the effect of back-diffusion on remediation timeframe, and long-term management and remediation strategies that mitigate back-diffusion effects.

• A mass balance assessment of natural attenuation at Plattsburgh Air Force Base, including the effects of methanotrophic cometabolism on volatile organic compound biodegradation.

• Case study review of emulsified oil injection at Charleston Naval Weapons Station including the application of specialized visualization and modeling tools.

• Modeling of the successful perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctyl sulfonate (PFOS) in situ remediation at a site using PlumeStop® Liquid Activated CarbonTM.

• Use of contact time as a metric for optimizing injection strategies.

• Introduction to physics-based management optimization (PBMO): Developing optimal exit strategies remains elusive when using only a heuristic trial and error approach. Computational optimization tools provide this optimal exit strategy capability development and implementation. This segment describes the motivation, technology, and speed improvements gained by using optimization tools. Optimal remedial design and documented site closure examples are provided. This optimization technology was recently recognized as the Grand Prize Award winner for Research in the 2017 American Academy of Environmental Engineers and Scientists competition.

materials have improved such that many sites are reaching remedial objectives, similar success in fractured and weathered crystalline and sedimentary bedrock remain allusive, and meeting rigorous remedial goals may be considered impracticable by some parties.

In the recent past, however, there have been significant advances in bedrock characterization, including new investigation tools, as well as advances and successes in bedrock remediation and a growing inventory of successes and lessons learned in challenging fractured bedrock environments. Setting and meeting realistic characterization and remediation goals in fractured rock sites is feasible with the understanding of the unique characteristics of fractured rock sites.

This training is a detailed presentation of the ITRC document of the same name. The course will focus on the similarities and differences of the conceptual site models for unconsolidated materials and fractured rocks. This will help guide the training and demystify fractured rock characterization and remediation to develop the skills necessary to develop adequate and detailed CSMs for fractured rock sites.

The training will also provide characterization and remediation strategies designed specifically for fractured rock sites, and present an interactive tools table that will help practitioners pick the correct tools to address their site-specific characterization needs.

Outline:1. Introduction

2. Fractured Rock CSM Considerations

3. Fluid Flow in Bedrock

4. Contaminant Fate and Transport

5. 21 Compartment Model

6. Integrated Fractured Rock Characterization Including How to Define and Collect Appropriate Scale Data

7. Present an Interactive Characterization Tools Table

8. Remedy Development for Contaminated Fractured Rock

9. Monitoring

10. Summary

Laptops are not required for this course.

Outline:1. Background on benefits and limitations of in situ

remediation technologies

a. How to define attainable goals for in situ remediation

2. Innovative visualization method to delineate where biodegradation is occurring in groundwater.

3. Using the NAPL depletion model to support source zone natural attenuation and remediation timeframe estimates

4. Introduction to the In-Situ Remediation Model (ISR-MT3DMS) for evluating remedy performance.

a. Case study of emulsified oil injection at Charleston Naval Weapons Station

b,. Case study of PlumeStop® injection for in situ remediation of a PFOS/PFOA source zone

c. Using contact time to improve remediation efficiency

5. PBMO for optimizing in situ remediation

Laptops are not required for this course.

Tuesday, April 10, 20182:00-6:00 p.m.

ITRC Training: Characterization and Remediation in Fractured Rock

Instructors:Michael B. Smith (Vermont Dept. of Environmental Conservation)Naji Akladiss, P.E. (Maine Department of Environmental Protection)Tamzen W. Macbeth, Ph.D., P.E. (CDM Smith)Ryan Wymore, P.E. (CDM Smith)Nathan Hagelin, L.E.P. (Wood PLC)Dan Bryant, Ph.D. (Woodard & Curran)

Objective: This course will present the ITRC Characterization and Remediation in Fractured Rock Technical Regulatory Guidance document as a 4-hour short course. The document and training will seek to demystify sites in contaminated fractured rock by providing background, tools, and characterization and remediation strategies in fractured rock to help obtain functional and absolute goals. The audience includes state and federal regulators, environmental professionals, problem holders, and stakeholders.

Overview: The problem statement is, that while our understanding of the distribution, fate and transport, and remediation of contamination in unconsolidated

94

95

Outline:1. General introduction of bioavailablitity and

bioaccessibility and their importance for human health risk assessment and risk management

2. Review of regulatory background

3. Soil characteristics that play a role in the contaminants’ bioavailabiilty (pH, mineralogy, particle size, etc.)

4. Decision Process: how do decide when to use site-specific bioavailability evaluation and which method to use in vivo evaluation (Bioavailability) and in vitro evaluation (Bioaccessibility)

5. Contaminant-specific methods and approaches:

a. Lead

b. Arsenic

c. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

6. How to integrate site-specific bioavailability in the human health risk assessment

7. Case studies

Laptops are required for this course.

Tuesday, April 10, 20182:00-6:00 p.m.

Natural Source Zone Depletion: New Conceptual Models and Assessment Methods

Instructors:Parisa Jourabchi, Ph.D. (Golder Associates Ltd.)John Wilson, Ph.D. (Scissortail Environmental Solutions, LLC)Matthew Lahvis, Ph.D. (Shell)Natasha Sihota, Ph.D. (Chevron)Sanjay Garg (Shell)Harley Hopkins (ExxonMobil)Ian Hers, Ph.D. (Golder Associates)Barbara Wilson (Scissortail Environmental Solutions, LLC)

Objective: This course will present information on the conceptual site model, the collection of measurement data, the analysis of data and use of models for estimation of natural source zone depletion (NSZD) rates and composition change of petroleum hydrocarbon source zones. The potential audience includes environmental professionals, state and federal regulators managing petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated sites, individuals and associations that manage contaminated lands.

Tuesday, April 10, 20182:00-6:00 p.m.

ITRC Guidance: Bioavailability of Contaminants in Soil — Considerations for Human Health Risk Assessment

Instructors:Claudio Sorrentino, Ph.D. (California Department of Toxic Substances Control)Valerie Hanley, Ph.D. (California Department of Toxic Substances Control)Kevin Long, M.S. (Ramboll)Barrie Selcoe, MPH (CH2M)

Objective: This training describes the general concepts of the bioavailability of contaminants in soil, reviews the state of the science, and discusses how to incorporate bioavailability into the human health risk assessment process. The short course focuses specifically on lead, arsenic, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The participants will learn how to select and use methods to evaluate site-specific bioavailability of contaminants in soil through case studies and how such information can be integrated in the human health risk assessment to inform risk management decisions and improve the efficiency of the use of the resources available.

Overview: Participants will learn to:• Value the ITRC document as a “go-to” resource for

soil bioavailability

• Apply the decision process to determine when a site-specific bioavailability assessment may be appropriate

• Use the ITRC Review Checklist to develop or review a risk assessment using soil bioavailability

• Consider factors that affect arsenic, lead and PAH bioavailability

• Select appropriate methods to evaluate bioavailability

• Use tools to develop site-specific bioavailability estimates and incorporate them into human health risk assessment

Outline:1. Purpose and rationale for NSZD assessment

2. Integration of NSZD in site management process

3. Conceptual site model and theoretical basis for NSZD

4. Vadose-zone measurement methods for NSZD estimates

5. Saturated-zone measurement methods and control volume concept

6. Modeling approaches and tools

7. Enhanced biodegradation methods and comparison to NSZD using lifecycle approach

8. Introduction to sustainability considerations

9. Case studies

Laptops are required for this course.

Tuesday, April 10, 20182:00-6:00 p.m.

Stratigraphic Flux: A Method for Determining Migration Pathways at Complex Sites

Instructors:Joseph Quinnan, PE, PG (Arcadis)Patrick Curry, PG, CPG (Arcadis)Nicklaus Welty, PG, CPG (Arcadis)

Objective: The objective is to present information on applying smart characterization techniques to develop three-dimensional, flux-based conceptual models to focus remedies and reduce total life-cycle costs. The potential audience includes environmental professionals, state and federal regulators, and stakeholders engaged in remediating complex sites.

Overview: Stratigraphic flux enables development of quantitative, flux-based conceptual site models that are founded in sequence stratigraphy, and high-resolution hydraulic conductivity and contaminant distribution measurements. The result is a three-dimensional graphical mapping of relative contaminant flux and classification of transport potential that is easy for all stakeholders to understand. The stratigraphic flux graphical model is based on a hydrofacies classification system that describes transport potential in three segments of the aquifer: transport zones—where 90% of the groundwater flow occurs and transport rates are measured in feet per day; slow advection zones—where 9% of the groundwater flow occurs and transport rates are measured in feet per year; and storage zones—where less than 1% of flow occurs, and diffusion tends to dominate transport.

Overview: There is increasing interest in NSZD as a remedial technology for sites impacted with petroleum hydrocarbons. An improved understanding of NSZD can lead to more optimized and sustainable site management and informed remedial decision-making. This course will combine theory and knowledge on the science combined with practical tools and tips for conducting NSZD assessments.

The course learning objectives are:1. Understand the role of NSZD in the overall site

management strategy.

2. Develop an improved knowledge of NSZD processes and mass loss and compositional change.

3. Gain practical knowledge on methods for estimation of NSZD rates including learning how to design and conduct field programs.

4. Understand data analysis methods and be able to conduct basic model calculations for NSZD estimation.

5. Develop improved understanding of enhanced biodegradation methods and potential benefits based on sustainability and life cycle considerations. The role of NSZD in site management and mechanisms of mass depletion and compositional change will be presented. The conceptual site model for NSZD will be described, including aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation, and saturated zone processes such as degassing and ebullition.

An integrated approach to estimation of NSZD rates including measurement and modeling methods for the vadose and saturated zones will be presented followed by the three primary vadose zone methods, the gradient, CO2 efflux and temperature methods; each will be described in detail with case study examples provided.

The role and use of NSZD models will be demonstrated including examples and case studies. Each course participant will be provided the Vadose Zone Biodegradation Loss (VZBL) model developed by Dr. John Wilson and Golder. An introduction to enhanced biodegradation methods will be provided together with life cycle method of analysis for comparison of NSZD to other remediation methods.

96

97

The hydrofacies architectures are based on stratigraphy, and transport potential is defined by grouping facies by orders of magnitude classes in hydraulic conductivity. By combining the hydrofacies architecture with contaminant concentration distributions, one can map relative contaminant flux to define and target the complex pathways that control contaminant transport and cleanup behavior. The results allow you to focus and optimize your remedies, reducing total life cycle costs and understanding potential risks before you remediate.

This workshop will provide training in smart characterization tool selection, data analysis and visualization approaches, and illustrate the concepts through a series of case studies. The training was developed through AFCEC funding on BAA 967 to address remediation of complex sites. A training guide and slides will be provided to course participants.

Outline:

1. Session 1: Return on Investigation

a. Moving from Conventional to Smart characterization

b. Return on Investigation

c. Stratigraphic Flux

d. Investigation Design and Interpretation of Data

2. Session 2: Stratigraphic Flux Background and Tools

a. The Mass Flux Perspective

b. Measuring Permeability

c. Measuring Concentration

d. Adaptive Investigation

3. Session 3: Method and Data Analysis

a. Interpreting High Density Data and Geology

b. Modeling Mass Flux

4. Session 4: Air Force Plant 4 - Chrome Pit 3:

a. Background

b. Stratigraphic Flux Approach and Methodology

c. Results of testing

d. Stratigraphic Flux Model

e. Summary

Laptops are not required for this course.

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 87,000 employees in 150 countries serving the environmental, transportation, facilities, oil and gas, mining, energy, water and government markets. www.aecom.com

Arcadis is the leading global design & consultancy firm for natural and built assets. 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

CONFERENCE SPONSORS

Battelle gratefully acknowledges the financial commitment and support of the following organizations for the 2018 Chlorinated Conference.

98

CONFERENCE SPONSORS

99

models that support the low-cost delivery of large programs, to complement the ability to solve the most complex technical challenges. We are 27,000 people active in over 70 countries that generate $3.5 billion in revenues. Applying our deep market sector insights and collective design, consultancy, engineering, project and management services we work in partnership with our clients to deliver exceptional and sustainable outcomes throughout the lifecycle of their natural and built assets. Arcadis. Improving quality of life. www.arcadis.com

CH2M is a leading professional services firm delivering sustainable solutions for the

world’s most complex challenges, advancing the quality and standard of living for people everywhere. With revenues approaching US$5.5 billion, the firm is actively working in 94 countries, with global headquarters based near Denver, Colo., USA. More than 22,000-strong, CH2M’s people make a positive difference around the world, providing consulting, design, engineering, project management and delivery of vital infrastructure and resources to clients in public and private sectors across diverse industries. The firm operates five business segments, including environment and nuclear; water; transportation; oil, gas and chemical; and industrial and urban environments. CH2M consistently ranks among Ethisphere’s World’s Most Ethical Companies; as the number-one firm in both environmental consulting and program management by Engineering News-Record; and among Verdantix leaders in sustainable engineering. To learn more about the CH2M difference, interact with us at www.ch2m.com; twitter.com/ch2m; facebook.com/ch2mhill; and search for jobs at www.ch2m.com/careers.

CDM Smith provides lasting and 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. www.cdmsmith.com

EOS Remediation is a leading women-owned small business supplying soil and groundwater remediation products that have been

used globally for more than a decade. Our patented and proven technologies have been independently validated while consistently achieving on-site remediation goals. EOS Remediation combines award-winning products with superior technical assistance to ensure successful outcomes. www.eosremediation.com

For over 40 years, ERM has supported leading companies across the world develop innovative, cost-effective, risk-based and sustainable remediation strategies. Whether it involves long-

term monitoring, active remediation, or working towards closure, many established organizations can experience increased costs due to changed conditions. Companies must be able to manage change by quickly and effectively identifying and addressing risks. With the use of innovative and sustainable technologies and proprietary solutions, ERM helps clients coordinate with all stakeholders to make more informed and faster decisions to protect human health and the environment, satisfy business goals and regulatory obligations, control costs, and manage stakeholder expectations. As a global provider of environmental, health, safety, and sustainability (EHSS) consulting services, ERM helps clients maximize the value of their asset portfolios and achieve their strategic objectives through the proactive management of their specific EHSS challenges. Safely developing innovative and sustainable solutions for contaminated land management challenges is at the core of what we do. ERM offers detailed insights and depth of experience to help drive innovation and operational excellence, optimize strategic investments, accelerate and enhance transactions and integrations, while reducing cost and complexity. Working with ERM, organizations can transform EHSS liabilities into assets to increase competitive advantage and drive stronger financial and reputational outcomes. Visit us at www.erm.com to learn how we can help solve your EHSS challenges.

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

For over thirty-five years, GEOKLOCK has been providing environmental engineering and consulting services, developing

innovative techniques and setting quality standards for the industry. Our many years of experience have made GEOKLOCK a leader in the Brazilian market and a benchmark for clients, competitors and environmental agencies. GEOKLOCK currently employs a multidisciplinary team of experts consisting of more than 140 highly qualified professionals – including geologists, engineers, chemists, agronomists, biologists, physicists, geographers, designers, environmental technicians and field assistants. Our team members adhere to strict ethical principles and take the confidentiality of our clients very seriously. In addition to our central office in the city of São Paulo, we also own an industrial warehouse of approximately 3,700 m2. This warehouse keeps a permanent stock of consumables, parts, equipment and vehicles. GEOKLOCK holds modern equipment to drill boreholes, install wells and collect soil and water samples (teams accredited according to the ISO/IEC 17025 Standard), ensuring efficient, fast and optimized results. GEOKLOCK recently assembled a high-resolution investigation unit, equipped with membrane interface probe, hydraulic profiling tool and optical image profiler. Our structure meets the most stringent safety and quality standards, so that we can provide our clients and teams with the support required to successfully complete highly complex projects. www.geoklock.com.br

Langan Engineering & Environmental

Services is a full-service consulting engineering firm. Langan employs more than 1,000 professionals in its 26 offices. Our reputation has been forged by providing environmental and engineering services for sites confronted by technical and regulatory challenges and difficult subsurface conditions. Langan provides environmental and site engineering consulting services for private developers, property owners and public-sector clients. Our three major disciplines include environmental, site/civil and geotechnical. Complementary capabilities include landscape architecture, survey, natural resources, transportation planning and 3-D laser scanning. Langan’s value engineering and innovative solutions in remediation have led to an unparalleled track record of award-winning projects. Langan is a leader in the use of innovative remediation technologies. Our “hands-on” approach and practical experience extend to all phases of a remedial program, including technology selection, treatability and pilot studies, remedial design, and remedy implementation. www.langan.com

Advanced manufacturing, energy, environment, water—for more than 70 years, OBG

has specialized in engineering and problem solving, 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

100

101

REGENESIS is the global leader in the research, development and commercialization of chemical in situ remediation solutions

for the environment. REGENESIS is known in the industry for scientifically proven product- and services-based solutions for groundwater and soil remediation. The 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, a division of REGENESIS, provides a range of proven technologies and systems to address this growing environmental concern. REGENESIS is a global organization, drawing from over 20 years of environmental remediation experience on over 26,000 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., and RPI Group provide a straightforward approach to in situ remediation that is often

imitated, but seldom recreated with such success as RPI. The Trap & Treat® family of products (BOS 100®, BOS 200®, CAT 100™ and CAT 200™) were born in 2002 and remain the very first, best researched & project supported carbon-based injectates in the world. Currently serving four continents, RPI Group projects are targeted for success with “best in class” project design/installation and pro bono analytical services from the only full service laboratory dedicated to the study of wet activated carbon and treatment additives. www.trapandtreat.com

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 California, 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, environmental, solid waste, water resources, construction management, public works, transportation, energy and real estate development. www.tandmassociates.com

TRS Group, Inc., employee-owned, is the largest and most experienced provider of in situ thermal remediation

with joint ventures in Brazil, Europe, and China. Since 1997, our group has completed over 150 ERH projects, more than the industry combined including 50 guaranteed projects. Customers surveyed find our expert team professional, conscientious, willing to share risk and easy to work with resulting in the highest rate of repeat business in the industry. From rapid contaminant source zone remediation of soil and groundwater, even in bedrock, to heat enhanced plume attenuation (HEPA® Remediation), TRS provides proven remedial solutions. www.thermalrs.com

Wood, formally known as Amec Foster Wheeler, is a global leader in the delivery of project,

engineering and technical services to energy and industrial markets. We operate in more than 60 countries, employing around 55,000 people, with revenues of over $11 billion. We provide performance-driven solutions throughout the asset life-cycle, from concept to decommissioning across a broad range of industrial markets including the upstream, midstream and downstream oil & gas, chemicals, environment and infrastructure, power & process, clean energy, mining and general industrial sectors. As a leading provider of environmental remediation services, Wood 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. www.woodplc.com

At Woodard & Curran, there’s nothing we love more than a tough engineering challenge. We handle a wide range of environmental and water issues—solving complex problems with creativity and

tenacity. That’s how we make a difference to our clients, people, and planet. Our clients trust us to achieve their goals, returning to work with us again and again. We provide services to address environmental, infrastructure, and water resources needs. www.woodardcurran.com

102

Burns & McDonnell provides our clients turnkey environmental services from upfront permitting and planning through construction, compliance, remediation, and site closure. Our environmental staff are recognized for pioneering the development and application of cutting-edge technologies, such as Environmental Sequence Stratigraphy (ESS), and we pride ourselves on being thought leaders in the industry, establishing best practices in remediation and leading the way in addressing emerging contaminants such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and coal combustion residuals (CCR) related contaminants. Burns & McDonnell’s engineers, construction professionals, scientists and consultants share a mission that has remained unchanged since 1898—make our clients successful. Our more than 5,700 professionals partner with you to take on the toughest challenges, striving to make the world an even more amazing place. Honored with numerous awards for excellence by professional organizations, government agencies and the armed forces, Burns & McDonnell has a reputation for providing high-quality service and innovative solutions to clients. Engineering News-Record ranks Burns & McDonnell in the top 5 percent of the leading 500 U.S. design firms and the top one-third of the leading program management

firms, design-build firms, construction management-for-fee firms, green design firms, and construction management-at-risk firms. www.burnsmcd.com

Porewater Solutions (PWS) is recognized for its innovative and

expert consulting services for contaminated sites and regional water resources, with specialization in mathematical modeling, environmental forensics, and litigation. We typically work on complex projects where technical excellence is needed to provide our clients with cost-effective solutions. Our clients include multinational manufacturing corporations, as well as large and small consulting firms. Porewater Solutions also develops industry-leading modeling and visualization software tools which enhance the characterization and remediation of complex sites. The PWS Institute delivers high quality continuing education to professional engineers and scientists worldwide. Porewater Solutions invests in a comprehensive research and development program to ensure we offer state-of-the-art consulting services, software, and education products. This includes collaborating with university researchers, technology developers, and remediation contractors. www.porewater.com

Learning Lab Sponsors