Sustainable groundwater remediation and reuse case study

Sustainability is an important consideration when designing a remedy given the value that can be demonstrated to all stakeholders. A case study is presented that illustrates an example where sustainability was emphasized during the selection and implementation of a groundwater remedy. An extensive free and/or residual product investigation was completed to demonstrate that hydraulic control is a suitable remedy and active direct treatment was not required pursuant to the state regulations. A pump and treat system for onsite hydraulic containment was installed to control plume migration. The system allows for 100 percent reuse of treated groundwater in the manufacturing process. Both the groundwater reuse and investigation conclusions have resulted in significant cost savings and sustainability benefits, including the reduction in the annual load on the drinking water aquifer by up to 138 million gallons per year.     

Sustainable remediation at the Massachusetts Military Reservation

When does remediation do more harm than good? After conducting a sustainability analysis on a large pump‐and‐treat site at the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR), the Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment (AFCEE) found evidence suggesting that the remediation systems were creating more pollution than they were remediating. For several years, the AFCEE/MMR has had an aggressive “better, cheaper, faster” optimization program intended to expedite aquifer restoration, reduce costs to the taxpayers, and reduce cleanup time frames. An initial sustainability analysis was conducted in 2005 as part of this program. The analysis identified several concerns, one of which was the indirect generation of air emissions from conventional fossil fuel–based power plants used to power the remediation systems. In addition to the environmental impact of these air emissions, the cost of electricity continues to increase. The AFCEE/MMR evaluated options for addressing both of these concerns and opted to employ renewable energy technology in the form of a utility‐scale wind turbine. This case study presents a more sustainable approach to remediation at the MMR through the use of renewable energy, in the form of a 1,500‐kW wind turbine. Power costs for operating the treatment systems, which processed up to 16 million gallons per day, amounted to over $2.2 million in 2008. The wind turbine is anticipated to reduce the program's electricity costs and offset air emissions, generated indirectly through the use of electricity from fossil fuel–based power plants, by approximately 25 to 30 percent. Based on a range of utility cost projections and an estimate of the turbine's energy production, the $4.6 million project is anticipated to have a payback period between six and eight years. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. *

1 This article is a U.S. Government work and, as such, is in the public domain of the United States of America.

     

Sustainable remediation panel—Measuring the social and economic benefits of a sustainable remediation project

Remediation developed a Sustainable Remediation Panel in the Summer 2009 issue, which featured the Sustainable Remediation Forum White Paper. The panel is composed of leaders in the field of sustainable remediation who have volunteered to provide their opinions on difficult subjects related to the topic of how to integrate sustainability principles into the remediation practice. The panel's opinions are provided in a question‐and‐answer format, whereby selected experts provide an answer to a question. This issue's question is provided below, followed by opinions from five experts in the remediation field.

相似文献   

Investigation versus remediation: Perception and reality

Case studies show some eyebrow-raising discrepancies between estimated contamination levels and the actual levels measured at the point of remediation. The three site investigations did not provide nearly enough information for estimating the magnitude of the cleanup effort. Inadequate numbers of samples and improper sampling design and analyses provided an unrepresentative picture of the true site conditions.     

Comparing groundwater remediation options

Although many conventional physical remediation methods are viewed as proven, they often only relocate wastes to other sites or into the air. How do the emerging biological and chemical in situ methods perform in the same applications? This article reviews their results (much of it in the laboratory) as well as their promise of more complete neutralization of hazardous wastes, lower capital costs, and longer-duration cleanup processes. The optimal method may be a combination of chemical and biological in situ techniques with physical pump-and-treat methods.     

Net impact of remediation

Following years of progress in designing and executing cleanups of contaminants at waste sites, the U.S. Air Force, state regulatory groups, and others are crafting methods to evaluate broader considerations of risk in remedial decisions. Integrating worker and climate risks into remediation efforts may confer significant benefits, but challenges exist to identifying, assessing, and accounting for them in the remedial process. For sites where future risk posed by contamination far exceeds the risk posed to workers who may be exposed to the contaminants during the remedial process, limiting the range of decision inputs to those presented by the site conditions made sense and provided a net benefit to human health and the environment. There are other sites, however, where future risk posed by the in situ contamination are at levels comparable to the real risks posed to workers, ecology, and even emerging concerns about climate change. For these sites, a net risk reduction cannot be assumed to be a result of remedial action, challenging the remedial community to develop new approaches to ensure positive results. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Legacy PCB building remediation

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) came onto the scene as an environmental threat quickly after they were discovered in humans and wildlife by Jensen in 1966. By October 1970, it was reported that PCBs were “truly ubiquitous pollutants” as PCBs were found at detectable concentrations in environmental samples throughout the world. Before 1971, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that 26% of PCBs sold were used in open‐end use applications, such as caulks, sealants, plasticizers, surface coatings, ink, adhesive, and carbonless paper. Processing and distribution of PCBs in commerce were largely banned in the U.S. after July 1979 with certain continued uses authorized by the EPA. While PCBs were banned a long time ago, the ban had no immediate tangible effect on the continued use of regulated levels of PCBs in buildings constructed before the bans were implemented. Legacy buildings with PCB‐containing building materials continue to represent potential sources of indoor air, dust, outdoor air, and soil contamination. Where PCBs are present in building materials, they have the potential to pose a risk to building occupants. Proper removal of PCB‐containing materials is a highly effective approach to abating the risk. The removal can range from targeting specific building PCB‐containing materials through demolition of the building. Engineering and administrative controls can also be useful tools when addressing the risks posed by PCB‐containing materials.     

The sustainable remediation forum

Regulators seem to currently be focusing on green remediation and not sustainable remediation. How can the industry change this perception so that a more holistic approach is followed?