Enabling Science Support for Better Decision-Making when Responding to Chemical Spills.

Chemical spills and accidents contaminate the environment and disrupt societies and economies around the globe. In the United States there were approximately 172,000 chemical spills that affected US waterbodies from 2004 to 2014. More than 8000 of these spills involved non-petroleum-related chemicals. Traditional emergency responses or incident command structures (ICSs) that respond to chemical spills require coordinated efforts by predominantly government personnel from multiple disciplines, including disaster management, public health, and environmental protection. However, the requirements of emergency response teams for science support might not be met within the traditional ICS. We describe the US ICS as an example of emergency-response approaches to chemical spills and provide examples in which external scientific support from research personnel benefitted the ICS emergency response, focusing primarily on nonpetroleum chemical spills. We then propose immediate, near-term, and long-term activities to support the response to chemical spills, focusing on nonpetroleum chemical spills. Further, we call for science support for spill prevention and near-term spill-incident response and identify longer-term research needs. The development of a formal mechanism for external science support of ICS from governmental and nongovernmental scientists would benefit rapid responders, advance incident- and crisis-response science, and aid society in coping with and recovering from chemical spills.

Tracer studies for evaluation of in situ air sparging and in-well aeration system performance at a gasoline-contaminated site.

Field-scale tracer studies were conducted at a gasoline-contaminated site in order to evaluate the effectiveness of in situ air sparging (IAS) and in-well aeration (IWA) in controlling the movement of soil gas and groundwater in the subsurface. The field site was comprised of silty sand (SM) and silty clay (CL), underlain by a clay layer at approximately 7.6 m. Depth to groundwater ranged from 2.4 to 3 m. Soil permeability and the natural hydraulic gradient were both low. Helium was used to trace the movement of soil gas in the unsaturated zone during the IAS field study, and successfully confirmed short-circuit pathways for injected air and demonstrated the limited distribution of injected gases at this site. Fluorescein, bromide, and rhodamine were used to trace the movement of groundwater during the IWA system field study, and successfully documented the inability of the IWA system to recirculate enough groundwater to enhance subsurface dissolved oxygen levels or to remediate groundwater by air stripping at this site. The inability of the systems to remediate the site was likely due to site conditions which consist of low-permeability soils and decreasing permeability with depth. As a result, relatively impermeable layers exist at the depth of the IAS screen and the lower IWA screen. These site conditions are not conducive to successful performance of either remediation system.