Skip to main content
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Subsurface cutoff walls still valuable in site remediation role

Journal Article · · Hazmat World; (United States)
OSTI ID:5571270
 [1];  [2]
  1. Eckenfelder Inc., Mahwah, NJ (United States)
  2. Eckenfelder Inc., Mahwah, NJ (United States). Waste Management Div.

In this age of RCRA, SARA and clean closures, many people have called into question the continuing value of subsurface cutoff walls as a remediation tool. Critics say cutoff walls are a containment rather than a treatment technology, and that they are ineffective, because even the most well-built leak. They are substantially correct. Subsurface cutoff walls are a containment technology, and they do leak to some degree. Why then do cutoff walls continue to be an integral part of many Superfund and other remediation efforts The need for cutoff walls stems from the limited capabilities of available soil and waste treatment technologies, especially when considering the complexity and size of many contaminated sites. Permanent disposal rarely is feasible at: large landfills; sites containing dense, non-aqueous-phase liquids (DNAPLs); and large industrial complexes. Over the last eight or nine years, DNAPL chemicals have come to be recognized as perhaps the most intractable problem of subsurface site remediation. This class of chemicals, also referred to as sinkers, primarily includes chlorinated solvents, such as trichloroethylene (TCE), methylene chloride, tetrachloroethylene and PCBs. DNAPL chemicals entering the subsurface tend to sink vertically through groundwater systems.

OSTI ID:
5571270
Journal Information:
Hazmat World; (United States), Journal Name: Hazmat World; (United States) Vol. 6:2; ISSN HMWOED; ISSN 0898-5685
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English