Optimizing the Environmental Performance of In Situ Thermal Remediation Technologies Using Life Cycle Assessment

In situ thermal remediation technologies provide efficient and reliable cleanup of contaminated soil and groundwater, but at a high cost of environmental impacts and resource depletion due to the large amounts of energy and materials consumed. This study provides a detailed investigation of four in situ thermal remediation technologies (steam enhanced extraction, thermal conduction heating, electrical resistance heating, and radio frequency heating) in order to (1) compare the life-cycle environmental impacts and resource consumption associated with each thermal technology, and (2) identify options to reduce these adverse effects. The study identifies a number of options for environmental optimization of in situ thermal remediation. In general, environmental optimization can be achieved by increasing the percentage of heating supplied in off peak electricity demand periods as this reduces the pressure on coal-based electricity and thereby reduces the environmental impacts due to electricity production by up to 10%. Furthermore, reducing the amount of concrete in the vapor cap by using a concrete sandwich construction can potentially reduce the environmental impacts due to the vapor cap by up to 75%. Moreover, a number of technology-specific improvements were identified, for instance by the substitution of stainless steel types in wells, heaters, and liners used in thermal conduction heating, thus reducing the nickel consumption by 45%. The combined effect of introducing all the suggested improvements is a 10 to 21% decrease in environmental impacts and an 8 to 20% decrease in resource depletion depending on the thermal remediation technology considered. The energy consumption was found to be the main contributor to most types of environmental impacts; this will, however, depend on the electricity production mix in the studied region. The combined improvement potential is therefore to a large extent controlled by the reduction/improvement of energy consumption.

[1]  M. Marley,et al.  Radio Frequency Heating for Soil Remediation. , 1999, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[2]  Gorm Heron,et al.  Thermal Treatment of Eight CVOC Source Zones to Near Nondetect Concentrations , 2009 .

[3]  M. Huijbregts,et al.  Normalisation in product life cycle assessment: an LCA of the global and European economic systems in the year 2000. , 2008, The Science of the total environment.

[4]  Charles J Newell,et al.  Groundwater Remediation: The Next 30 Years , 2012, Ground water.

[5]  G. Heron,et al.  Full‐Scale Removal of DNAPL Constituents Using Steam‐Enhanced Extraction and Electrical Resistance Heating , 2005 .

[6]  Michael Zwicky Hauschild,et al.  Life cycle assessment of soil and groundwater remediation technologies: literature review , 2009 .

[7]  Peter Friis-Hansen,et al.  Risk-based economic decision analysis of remediation options at a PCE-contaminated site. , 2010, Journal of environmental management.

[8]  A. M. Fet,et al.  Use of life cycle assessments to evaluate the environmental footprint of contaminated sediment remediation. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[9]  P. Binning,et al.  Modeling multi-component transport and enhanced anaerobic dechlorination processes in a single fracture-clay matrix system. , 2010, Journal of contaminant hydrology.

[10]  Philip J Binning,et al.  Is there an environmental benefit from remediation of a contaminated site? Combined assessments of the risk reduction and life cycle impact of remediation. , 2012, Journal of environmental management.

[11]  Paul C. Johnson,et al.  State‐of‐the‐Practice Review of In Situ Thermal Technologies , 2010 .

[12]  Stig Irving Olsen,et al.  Normalization references for Europe and North America for application with USEtox™ characterization factors , 2011 .

[13]  Manuele Margni,et al.  Environmental impacts of remediation of a trichloroethene-contaminated site: life cycle assessment of remediation alternatives. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[14]  Bruce C. W. McGee,et al.  Electro-Thermal Dynamic Stripping Process for in situ remediation under an occupied apartment building , 2003 .

[15]  M. Higgins,et al.  Life-cycle case study comparison of permeable reactive barrier versus pump-and-treat remediation. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[16]  Stig Irving Olsen,et al.  Normalization in EDIP97 and EDIP2003: updated European inventory for 2004 and guidance towards a consistent use in practice , 2011 .

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

[18]  I. Lo,et al.  Environmental life cycle assessment of permeable reactive barriers: effects of construction methods, reactive materials and groundwater constituents. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[19]  Manuele Margni,et al.  Comparison of the Secondary Environmental Impacts of Three Remediation Alternatives for a Diesel-contaminated Site in Northern Canada , 2010 .

[20]  Mark A. J. Huijbregts,et al.  USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment , 2008 .

[21]  Alexis Laurent,et al.  Limitations of carbon footprint as indicator of environmental sustainability. , 2012, Environmental science & technology.