Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup From Concept to Commercialization (1997) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
1 CHALLENGES OF GROUND WATER AND SOIL CLEANUP
1 CHALLENGES OF GROUND WATER AND SOIL CLEANUP
Pages 18-41
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 18... ...
As cleanup at waste sites has proceeded, it has become increasingly recognized that despite the billions of dollars invested, conventional remediation technologies, especially for sites with contaminated ground water, are inadequate. For example, a 1994 National Research Council (NRC)
|
From page 19... ...
These initiatives range from issuance of an official EPA policy titled "Initiatives to Promote Innovative Technology in Waste Management Programs" (Laws, 1996) , to development of the Ground Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center (which provides on-line information on new technologies)
|
From page 20... ...
Affordable remediation technologies that can remove the bulk of contaminant mass from the subsurface at contaminated sites would reduce the long-term risks, liabilities, and costs associated with these sites. This report focuses on how to harness market forces to stimulate development of new, affordable remediation technologies and how to standardize testing, evaluation, and cost comparison of innovative remediation technologies.
|
From page 21... ...
In conducting its study, the committee consulted with a wide range of stakeholders involved in the testing of subsurface cleanup technologies, including federal and state regulators, industry groups, heads of start-up technology companies, and venture capitalists. This chapter provides an overview of the sources of ground water and soil contamination, the limitations of conventional remediation technologies, and the frequency of use of innovative remediation technologies.
|
From page 22... ...
disposal Surface impoundments Waste tailings Waste piles Materials stockpiles Graveyards Animal burial sites Above-ground storage tanks Underground storage tanks Containers Open burning and detonation sites Radioactive disposal sites Sources designed to retain substances during transport or transmission Pipelines Material transport and transfer operations Sources discharging substances as consequences of other planned activities Irrigation practices (e.g., return flow) Pesticide applications Fertilizer applications Animal feeding operations De-icing salts applications Urban runoff Percolation of atmospheric pollutants Mining and mine drainage Sources providing pollution conduits or inducing discharge through altered flow patterns Production wells Oil (and gas)
|
From page 23... ...
~3 in in o Q in .
|
From page 24... ...
Other contaminants can sorb to mobile colloidal particles or form complexes with molecules of natural organic matter present in the water and be transported with these particles and complexes. The fate of contaminants once released to the soil or ground water is extremely difficult to predict for a variety of reasons.
|
From page 25... ...
The speed at which the plume will move depends on the rate of ground water flow and on contaminant retention and transformation mechanisms. Generally, the average ground water flow rate will be the maximum possible average rate of plume movement.
|
From page 26... ...
The flow lines indicate travel times to various parts of the subsurface, with longer travel times indicated by flow lines reaching deeper into the subsurface. SOURCE: Heath (1983)
|
From page 28... ...
closed or abandoned waste sites designated for cleanup under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) , commonly known as Superfund;
|
From page 29... ...
; 3. leaking underground storage tanks at gas stations and other facilities, for which cleanup is required under a special section of RCRA; 4.
|
From page 30... ...
In general, the estimated total number of contaminated sites is in the range of 300,000 to 400,000. Most of these sites are contaminated as a result of leaks in underground storage tanks.
|
From page 31... ...
Most of the sites shown in Table 1-2 are leaking underground storage tank sites. If the contamination is from a single tank at a gas station, the site will be relatively easy to clean up, especially if it is located in an area with relatively homogeneous geology.
|
From page 32... ...
LIMITATIONS OF CONVENTIONAL REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES AS iS now widely recognized, conventional methods for cleaning up ground water and soil at hazardous waste sites have met with limited success. Conventional technologies for cleaning contaminated ground water are based on the principle that if enough water is pumped from the site, the contaminants will eventually be flushed out.
|
From page 33... ...
Historically, the conventional approach to soil cleanup has been to incinerate the contaminated soil on site or off site, to solidify it in place with cementing agents, or to excavate it and dispose of it in a hazardous waste landfill. The public often objects to incineration because of the air pollution it can create, and cleanup of many Superfund sites has been halted because of such objections.
|
From page 34... ...
34 INNOVATIONS IN GROUND WATER AND SOIL CLEANUP contaminated soil using conventional methods can cost as much as $2,000 per ton of soil. USE OF INNOVATIVE REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES During the 1990s, as the limitations of conventional subsurface remediation technologies have become increasingly clear, innovative technologies have become increasingly common in the cleanup of contaminated soil and of leaking
|
From page 35... ...
However, use of innovative technologies is still very rare for cleaning up ground water at major contaminated sites regulated by the Superfund and RCRA programs. Figures 1-7 and 1-8 show the types of technologies used to clean up contaminated soil at Superfund and underground storage tank sites, respectively.
|
From page 36... ...
The greater use of innovative ground water cleanup technologies at underground storage tank sites in comparison to Superfund sites is a function of the relative simplicity of cleaning up these sites in comparison to Superfund sites and the greater regulatory flexibility of the underground storage tank program. Leaking underground storage tanks typically contain petroleum hydrocarbons, which are generally easier to clean up than other types of contaminants (see Chapter 3~.
|
From page 37... ...
Pump-and-treat remedy data are based on records of decision for fiscal years 1982 through 1995; in situ treatment data are based on anticipated design and construction activities for August 1996. The total number of sites with remedies for contaminated ground water is 603.
|
From page 38... ...
BARRIERS TO INNOVATION Since the late 1980s, reports from a variety of organizations have indicated that significant barriers exist to development of remediation technologies for commercial markets. Early reports were produced by a federal advisory commission known as the Technology Innovation and Economics Committee, part of the National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology.
|
From page 39... ...
a report issued by the National Commission on Superfund, established to develop a consensus among industries, environmental groups, and government officials about changes needed in the Superfund program (National Commission on Superfund, 1994~. Barriers to use of innovative technologies are complex and range from the inherent variability of the subsurface environment, to regulatory obstacles, conservatism on the part of hazardous waste site owners and their consultants, and lack of trustworthy data on technology performance.
|
From page 40... ...
1996. Letter to Superfund, RCRA, UST, and CEPP national policy managers, Federal Facilities Leadership Council, and brownfields coordinators regarding EPA initiatives to promote innovative technology in waste management programs.
|
From page 41... ...
1995. State of the States on Brownfields: Programs for Cleanup and Reuse of Contaminated Sites.
|
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.