Barrier Technologies for Environmental Management Summary of a Workshop (1997) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup
Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup
Pages 119-132
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 119... ...
The studies indicated that pump-and-treat systems may be unable to remove enough contamination to restore the ground water to drinking water standards, or that removal may require a very long time, in some cases centuries. As a result of these studies, there is almost universal concern among groups with diverse interests in ground water contamination from government agencies overseeing contaminated sites to industries responsible for the cleanups, environmental groups representing affected citizens, and research scientists-that the nation might be wasting large amounts of money on ineffective remediation efforts.
|
From page 120... ...
Regardless of the remediation technology chosen, these inherent complexities pose major obstacles to ground water cleanup.
|
From page 121... ...
As the complexity of the site Increases, the likelihood that the pumpand-treat system will meet drinking water standards decreases. Table ES-1, developed by the committee and taken from Chapter 3 of this report, shows the relative ease of ground water cleanup as a fimction of contaminant chemistry and subsurface hydrogeology.
|
From page 122... ...
Finally' when using a framework such as Table ES-1, it is important to realize that to some extent the feasibility of ground water cleanup depends on the cleanup goals. Returning the ground water to drinking water standards may not be possible at many sites.
|
From page 123... ...
CAPABILITIES OF ENTIANCED PUMP-AND-TREAT AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES Numerous innovative technologies exist that have the potential to improve significantly the efficiency of ground water cleanups, especially when technologies suited to specific types of contaminants or specific hydrogeologic environments are combined. While no known technology can ensure the achievement of health-based cleanup goals at complex sites, these innovations nevertheless have the potential to increase the effectiveness and reduce the costs of ground water cleanup.
|
From page 124... ...
in cn TO a' 'e c)
|
From page 126... ...
Barriers to Implementing Enhancements and Alternatives A variety of barriers have discouraged those involved in ground water cleanup from assuming the risks associated with using innovative technologies that lack proven track records. The most significant barriers include the following: · allocation of liability if a technology fails; · inability to raise sufficient capital for successful commercialization; · lack of vendors for some innovations, · federal regulations specifying that any contractor involved in the selection or testing of a technology is ineligible for construction; · lack of testing facilities; · lack of cost and efficiency information; · lack of adequate technical expertise among consultants and regulators; and · the requirement to construct a pump-and-treat system if the innovative technology fails to achieve cleanup goals.
|
From page 127... ...
On the other hand, some people contend that drinking water standards or stricter requirements should be maintained as cleanup goals regardless of the capabilities of technology for two reasons: to provide an incentive against further pollution and to encourage development of improved cleanup technologies. In the debate over ground water cleanup goals, many alternative cleanup goals have been suggested.
|
From page 128... ...
Thus, a high degree of uncertainty exists, making quantitative assessment of the risks and benefits of various ground water cleanup goals extremely difficult. Like society as a whole, the committee had diverse views about which of the various alternative cleanup goals is most appropriate and whether the current approach of requiring cleanup to drinking water standards at a large number of sites should be changed.
|
From page 129... ...
Although cleanup is possible at some sites, properties of the subsurface and the contaminants may make restoring contaminated ground water to Drinking water standards technically Infeasible with current technology in reasonable time frames (decades) at a large number of sites.
|
From page 130... ...
In the middle is a group of sites generally represented by categories 2 and 3 In Table ES-1; for sites In this group, attaining health-based ground water cleanup goals will be difficult or unlikely with current technology but not necessarily impossible over the long term as technology improves. The long-term cleanup goals for sites In this middle group should be temporarily superseded by interim objectives reflecting the capabilities of existing technologies.
|
From page 131... ...
Existing procedures for setting ground water cleanup goals do not adequately account for the diversity of contaminated sites and the technical complexity of ground water cleanup. Whether goals established under existing procedures adequately protect public health and the environment, or whether they are overprotective or underprotective, is uncertain, as are the costs to society when these goals cannot be achieved.
|
From page 132... ...
Although the ground water cleanup problem is technically complex, the implications of site complexities as well as the promise that innovative technologies hold to improve cleanup should be explained to the affected public. The committee recommends that the EPA include expanded efforts at community relations within the technical impracticability waiver process and revise its community relations guidance documents to include issues of technical impracticability.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.