Life-cycle case study comparison of permeable reactive barrier versus pump-and-treat remediation.

A permeable reactive barrier (PRB) is a passive remediation technology, which over decades of use, may reduce lifetime environmental impacts when compared with a conventional pump-and-treat system (PTS). Greater material production requirements to install PRBs may offset the expected reductions in operational phase impacts and the trade-offs can be investigated in a life-cycle assessment (LCA). The life-cycle environmental impacts of a zerovalent iron (ZVI) containing PRB with a funnel and gate configuration and a PTS were compared in a case study. Potential impacts of the model PRB are driven by the ZVI reactive medium and the energy usage during construction, while for the PTS they are driven by the operational energy demand. Medium longevity governed the magnitude of the potential PRB impacts and the extent to which it was optimal relative to the PTS. Even at conservatively low estimates of longevity, the PRB offers significant environmental advantages in impact categories of human health and ozone depletion. The minimum ZVI longevity for PRB benefit over the PTS system in all impact categories was 10 years. Suggested PRB design innovations to reduce environmental impacts include the development of alternative reactive media and construction methods.

[1]  Jenny Norrman,et al.  LCA for Site Remediation: A Literature Review , 2004 .

[2]  G. Norris,et al.  TRACI the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts , 2002 .

[3]  Réjean Samson,et al.  Selection of a remediation scenario for a diesel-contaminated site using LCA , 2007 .

[4]  Peter Bayer,et al.  Life cycle assessment of active and passive groundwater remediation technologies. , 2006, Journal of contaminant hydrology.

[5]  Day,et al.  Geotechnical techniques for the construction of reactive barriers , 1999, Journal of hazardous materials.

[6]  C. H. Ward,et al.  Remediating chlorinated solvent source zones. , 2003, Environmental science & technology.

[7]  R. Puls,et al.  Long‐Term Performance of Permeable Reactive Barriers Using Zero‐Valent Iron: Geochemical and Microbiological Effects , 2003, Ground water.

[8]  Robert W. Gillham,et al.  Long‐Term Performance of an In Situ “Iron Wall” for Remediation of VOCs , 1998 .

[9]  Avery H. Demond,et al.  Long-Term Performance of Zero-Valent Iron Permeable Reactive Barriers: A Critical Review , 2007 .

[10]  John A. Cherry,et al.  Groundwater contamination: pump-and-treat remediation , 1989 .

[11]  R. L. Valentine,et al.  Chemistry and Microbiology of Permeable Reactive Barriers for In Situ Groundwater Clean up , 2000 .

[12]  A. Gavaskar,et al.  Design and construction techniques for permeable reactive barriers. , 1999, Journal of hazardous materials.

[13]  Cynthia A. Page,et al.  Life‐cycle framework for assessment of site remediation options: Method and generic survey , 1999 .

[14]  Cynthia A. Page,et al.  Life‐cycle framework for assessment of site remediation options: Case study , 1999 .