Oxidant Delivery Approaches and Contingency Planning

  • Thomas J. Simpkin
  • Tom Palaia
  • Benjamin G. Petri
  • Brant A. Smith
Part of the SERDP/ESTCP Environmental Remediation Technology book series (SERDP/ESTCP, volume 3)


Approaches to deliver oxidants into the subsurface, as well as contingency planning to manage and adapt oxidant delivery systems.

Key Concepts

  • There are a number of oxidant transport mechanisms that are important to understand and consider when selecting, designing, and implementing an in situ chemical oxidation project.

  • A number of oxidant delivery approaches may be used, including injections wells, direct-push technology probes, sparge points, infiltration systems, recirculation systems, fracturing, mechanical mixing, and horizontal wells. Of these, injection wells and direct-push technology probes are most commonly used.

  • Each delivery approach has characteristics that may make it most suitable for a particular oxidant and set of site conditions.

  • The factors and challenges that should be considered when selecting and designing an oxidant delivery approach include aquifer heterogeneity, contaminant distribution, presence of underground utilities, contaminant displacement by the injection of oxidant, and mixing of activators with the oxidant (for those requiring activators).

  • As a result of the many challenges and uncertainties with delivering oxidants into the subsurface, the Observational Method is often beneficial to achieve the desired performance.

  • The Observational Method includes establishing appropriate contingency plans during the development of the project. The contingency plan(s) should include an inventory of possible outcomes, development of appropriate monitoring to detect deviations from the assumed conditions, and development of response actions if the deviations occur.


Injection Well Injection Point Horizontal Well Contingency Planning Recirculation System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Brown SM, Lincoln DR, Wallace WA. 1989. Application of observational method to hazardous waste engineering. Am Soc Civil Eng J Manag Eng 6:479–500.Google Scholar
  2. Cline SR, West OR, Korte NE, Gardner FG, Siegrist RL. 1997. KMnO4 chemical oxidation and deep soil mixing for soil treatment. Geotech News 15:25–28.Google Scholar
  3. Haselow J, Rossabi R, Escochea E, Vanek J. 2008. Delivery of ISCO Reagents Using Soil Blending. Proceedings of Sixth International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, CA, USA, May 19–22, Abstract L-006.Google Scholar
  4. Huling SG, Pivetz BE. 2006. Engineering Issue Paper: In-Situ Chemical Oxidation. EPA 600-R-06-702. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 60 p. Accessed July 18, 2010.
  5. Kitanidis PK, McCarty PL, eds. 2011. Delivery and Mixing in the Subsurface: Processes and Design Principles for In Situ Remediation. SERDP and ESTCP Remediation Technology Monograph Series. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  6. Krembs FJ. 2008. Critical Analysis of the Field Scale Application of In Situ Chemical Oxidation for the Remediation of Contaminated Groundwater. MS Thesis, Environmental Science and Engineering Division, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, USA. April.Google Scholar
  7. Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board-In Situ Remediation Reagents Injection Working Group. 2009. Guidelines for Subsurface Injection of In Situ Remedial Reagents (ISRRs) Within the Jurisdiction. September 16, 2009. pdf. 46 p.
  8. Lowe KS, Gardner FG, Siegrist RL. 2002. Field pilot test of in situ chemical oxidation through recirculation using vertical wells. Ground Water Monit Remediat 22:106–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Murdoch L, Slack B, Siegrist B, Vesper S, Meiggs T. 1997. Hydraulic fracturing advances. Civil Eng 67:10A–12A.Google Scholar
  10. NRC (National Research Council). 2005. Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA. 372 p.Google Scholar
  11. Palaia TA, Sprinkle CL. 2004. Results from Two Pilot Testing Using Pneumatic Fracturing and Chemical Oxidant Injection Technologies. Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, CA, USA, May 24–27, Paper 5B-04.Google Scholar
  12. Palaia TA, Tsangaris SN, Singletary MA, Nwokike BR. 2004. Optimization of a Groundwater Circulation System for In-Situ Chemical Oxidation Treatment. Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, CA, USA, May 24–27, Paper 5A–17.Google Scholar
  13. Payne FC, Quinnan JA, Potter ST. 2008. Remediation Hydraulics. CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Peck RB. 1969. Advantages and limitations of the observational method in applied soil mechanics. Geotechnique 19:171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sale T, Dandy D, Zimbron J, Illangasekare T, Rodriguez D, Wilking B. 2005. AFCEE Source Zone Initiative–Back Diffusion of Contaminants in Source Zones and Plumes. Hydrology Days. Presented at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Hydrology Days 2005, Fort Collins, CO, USA, March 7–9. Accessed July 18, 2010.
  16. Seitz SJ. 2004. Experimental Evaluation of Mass Transfer and Matrix Interactions During In Situ Chemical Oxidation Relying on Diffusive Transport. MS Thesis, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, USA.Google Scholar
  17. Siegrist RL, Lowe KS, Smuin DR, West OR, Gunderson JS, Korte NE, Pickering DA, Houk TC. 1998. Permeation Dispersal of Reactive Fluids for In Situ Remediation: Field Studies. ORNL/TM-13596. Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  18. Siegrist RL, Lowe KS, Murdoch LC, Case TL, Pickering DL. 1999. In situ oxidation by fracture emplaced reactive solids. J Environ Eng 125:429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Siegrist RL, Urynowicz MA, West OR, Crimi ML, Lowe KS. 2001. Principles and Practices of In Situ Chemical Oxidation Using Permanganate. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, USA. 336 p.Google Scholar
  20. Sterrett RJ, ed. 2007. Groundwater and Wells, 3rd ed. Johnson Screens, A Weatherford Company, New Brighton, MN, USA.Google Scholar
  21. Strong M, Bozzini C, Hood D, Lowder B. 2006. Air and Ozone Sparging of TCE Using a Directionally Drilled Horizontal Well. Proceedings of Fifth International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, CA, USA, May 22–25, Paper M–26.Google Scholar
  22. Suthersan S, Divine CE, Potter ST. 2009. Remediating large plumes: Overcoming the scale challenge. Ground Water Monit Remediat 29:45–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Terzaghi K, Peck RB, Mesri G. 1996. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 3rd ed. Wiley-Interscience, Malden, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  24. Triad Resource Center. 2009. Accessed July 18, 2010.
  25. USDOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1997. Uncertainty Management: Expediting Cleanup Through Contingency Planning. DOE/EH/(CERCLA)-002. USDOE Office of Environmental Management/Office of Environment Safety & Health, Washington, DC, USA, February.Google Scholar
  26. West OR, Cline SR, Holden WL, Gardner FG, Schlosser BM, Thate JE, Pickering DA, Houk TC. 1998. A Full-Scale Field Demonstration of In Situ Chemical Oxidation through Recirculation at the X-701B Site. ORNL/TM-13556. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TX, USA. 114 p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas J. Simpkin
    • 1
  • Tom Palaia
    • 1
  • Benjamin G. Petri
    • 2
  • Brant A. Smith
    • 3
  1. 1.CH2M HILLEnglewoodUSA
  2. 2.Colorado School of MinesGoldenUSA
  3. 3.XDD, LLCStrathamUSA

Personalised recommendations