Life cycle assessment of active and passive groundwater remediation technologies.

Groundwater remediation technologies, such as pump-and-treat (PTS) and funnel-and-gate systems (FGS), aim at reducing locally appearing contaminations. Therefore, these methodologies are basically evaluated with respect to their capability to yield local improvements of an environmental situation, commonly neglecting that their application is also associated with secondary impacts. Life cycle assessment (LCA) represents a widely accepted method of assessing the environmental aspects and potential impacts related to a product, process or service. This study presents the set-up of a LCA framework in order to compare the secondary impacts caused by two conceptually different technologies at the site of a former manufactured gas plant in the city of Karlsruhe, Germany. As a FGS is already operating at this site, a hypothetical PTS of the same functionality is adopted. During the LCA, the remediation systems are evaluated by focusing on the main technical elements and their significance with respect to resource depletion and potential adverse effects on ecological quality, as well as on human health. Seven impact categories are distinguished to address a broad spectrum of possible environmental loads. A main point of discussion is the reliability of technical assumptions and performance predictions for the future. It is obvious that a high uncertainty exists when estimating impact specific indicator values over operation times of decades. An uncertainty analysis is conducted to include the imprecision of the underlying emission and consumption data and a scenario analysis is utilised to contrast various possible technological variants. Though the results of the study are highly site-specific, a generalised relative evaluation of potential impacts and their main sources is the principle objective rather than a discussion of the calculated absolute impacts. A crucial finding that can be applied to any other site is the central role of steel, which particularly derogates the valuation of FGS due to the associated emissions that are harmful to human health. In view of that, environmental credits can be achieved by selecting a mineral-based wall instead of sheet piles for the funnel construction and by minimising the steel consumption for the gate construction. Granular activated carbon (GAC) is exclusively considered as the treatment material, both in-situ and on-site. Here it is identified as an additional main determinant of the relative assessment of the technologies since it is continuously consumed.

[1]  Georg Teutsch,et al.  Cost‐optimal contaminant plume management with a combination of pump‐and‐treat and physical barrier systems , 2005 .

[2]  Peter Bayer,et al.  Economical and ecological comparison of granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorber refill strategies. , 2005, Water research.

[3]  Patrick Hofstetter,et al.  The Mixing Triangle: Correlation and Graphical Decision Support for LCA‐based Comparisons , 1999 .

[4]  F. Arendt,et al.  ConSoil 2003. Proceedings of the 8th international FZK/TNO conference on contaminated soil, ICC Gent, Belgium, 12-16, May 2003 , 2004 .

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

[6]  Hans-Jürgen Dr. Klüppel,et al.  ISO 14041: Environmental management — life cycle assessment — goal and scope definition — inventory analysis , 1998 .

[7]  J. Pichtel.  Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds , 2001 .

[8]  Walter Klöpffer,et al.  Life cycle assessment of contaminated sites remediation , 1999 .

[9]  Chin-Fu Tsang,et al.  CAPTURE-ZONE TYPE CURVES: A TOOL FOR AQUIFER CLEANUP , 1986 .

[10]  Douglas C. Montgomery,et al.  Screening stochastic Life Cycle assessment inventory models , 2002 .

[11]  Robert P. Vignes.  Use limited life-cycle analysis for environmental decision-making , 2001 .

[12]  Réjean Samson,et al.  Combined Use of Life Cycle Assessment and Groundwater Transport Modeling to Support Contaminated Site Management , 2004 .

[13]  John A. Cherry,et al.  In Situ Remediation of Contaminated Ground Water: The Funnel-and-Gate System , 1994 .

[14]  T. Meggyes,et al.  Removal of organic and inorganic pollutants from groundwater using permeable reactive barriers Part 2. Engineering of permeable reactive barriers , 2000 .

[15]  Peter Grathwohl,et al.  Time scales of organic contaminant dissolution from complex source zones: coal tar pools vs. blobs. , 2002, Journal of contaminant hydrology.

[16]  H. Métivier-Pignon,et al.  Life cycle assessment as a tool for controlling the development of technical activities: application to the remediation of a site contaminated by sulfur , 2004 .

[17]  David Evans,et al.  Excluding site-specific data from the lca inventory: how this affects life cycle impact assessment , 2002 .

[18]  Peter Grathwohl,et al.  Diffusion in Natural Porous Media: Contaminant Transport, Sorption/Desorption and Dissolution Kinetics , 1998 .

[19]  S. Kraft,et al.  Untersuchungen zum Langzeiteinsatz der In-situ-Aktivkohlefiltration zur Entfernung von organischen Schadstoffen aus Grundwasser , 2003 .

[20]  Henrikke Baumann,et al.  The hitch hiker's guide to LCA : an orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and application , 2004 .

[21]  D W Pennington,et al.  Life cycle assessment: Part 1: Framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications , 2004 .

[22]  Marsha I. Sheppard,et al.  Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: From Concept to Commercialization , 1999 .

[23]  G Finnveden,et al.  Life cycle assessment part 2: current impact assessment practice. , 2004, Environment international.

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

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

[26]  C. H. Ward,et al.  Peer Reviewed: Remediating Chlorinated Solvent Source Zones , 2003 .

[27]  Göran Finnveden,et al.  Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment , 1999 .

[28]  Euro Beinat,et al.  The REC decision support system for comparing soil remediation alternatives. A methodology based on risk reduction, environmental merit and costs , 1998 .

[29]  Alan J. Rabideau,et al.  Decision Analysis for Pump‐and‐Treat Design , 2000 .

[30]  J. Potting.  Spatial Differentiation in Life Cycle Impact Assessment A Framework, and Site-Dependent Factors to Assess Acidification and Human Exposure , 2000 .

[31]  Mark A. J. Huijbregts,et al.  Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA , 1998 .