Thông tin tài liệu
Visit the
National Academies Press online, the authoritative source for all books
from the
National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering,
the
Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council:
• Download hundreds of free books in PDF
• Read thousands of books online for free
• Explore our innovative research tools – try the “Research Dashboard” now!
• Sign up to be notified when new books are published
• Purchase printed books and selected PDF files
Thank you for downloading this PDF. If you have comments, questions or
just want more information about the books published by the National
Academies Press, you may contact our customer service department toll-
free at 888-624-8373,
visit us online, or send an email to
feedback@nap.edu.
This book plus thousands more are available at
http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF File are copyrighted by the National
Academy of Sciences. Distribution, posting, or copying is strictly prohibited without
written permission of the National Academies Press.
Request reprint permission for this book.
ISBN: 0-309-58624-0, 336 pages, 6 x 9, (1994)
This PDF is available from the National Academies Press at:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/2311.html
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/2311.html
We ship printed books within 1 business day; personal PDFs are available immediately.
Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup
Committee on Ground Water Cleanup Alternatives,
National Research Council
Alternatives for
Ground Water Cleanup
Committee on Ground Water Cleanup Alternatives
Water Science and Technology Board
Board on Radioactive Waste Management
Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1994
i
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/2311.html
National Academy Press 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the
National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy
of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of
the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard
for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures
approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sci-
ences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
Support for this project was provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
Agreement No. CR 818700-01-0, the U.S. Department of Energy under Agreement Nos. DE-
AL01-89DP48070 and DE-AC01-89DP8070, Chevron USA, Inc., and the Coalition on Superfund.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Alternatives for ground water cleanup / Committee on Ground Water Cleanup Alternatives,
Water Science and Technology Board, Board on Radioactive Waste Management, Commission on
Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, National Research Council.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-309-04994-6
1. Groundwater—Purification. I. National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on
Ground Water Cleanup Alternatives.
TD426.A48 1994
363.73'94—dc20 94-29573
CIP
Cover art by Y. David Chung. Title design by Rumen Buzatov. Chung and Buzatov are graduates of
the Corcoran School of Art in Washington, D.C. Chung has exhibited widely throughout the coun-
try, including at the Whitney Museum in New York, the Washington Project for the Arts in Wash-
ington, D.C., and the Williams College Museum of Art in Williamstown, Massachusetts.
The cover illustration shows how the elements of weather, geography, and underground strata
all combine to affect our ground water.
Copyright 1994 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
First Printing, June 1994
Second Printing, July 1995
ii
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/2311.html
COMMITTEE ON GROUND WATER CLEANUP
ALTERNATIVES
MICHAEL C. KAVANAUGH, Chair, ENVIRON Corporation, Emeryville,
California
JAMES W. MERCER, Vice-Chair, GeoTrans, Inc., Sterling, Virginia
LINDA M. ABRIOLA, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
CHARLES B. ANDREWS, S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc., Bethesda,
Maryland
MARY JO BAEDECKER, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia
EDWARD J. BOUWER, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
PATRICIA A. BUFFLER, University of California, Berkeley
ROBERT E. CONNICK, University of California, Berkeley
RICHARD A. CONWAY, Union Carbide Corporation, South Charleston, West
Virginia
RALPH C. D'ARGE, University of Wyoming, Laramie
LINDA E. GREER, Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C.
JOSEPH H. HIGHLAND, ENVIRON Corporation, Princeton, New Jersey
DOUGLAS M. MACKAY, Centre for Groundwater Research, University of
Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
GLENN PAULSON, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, liaison to the
Board on Radioactive Waste Management
LYNNE M. PRESLO, ICF-Kaiser Engineers, Oakland, California
PAUL V. ROBERTS, Stanford University, Stanford, California
WILLIAM J. WALSH, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, Washington, D.C.
C. HERB WARD, Rice University, Houston, Texas
MARCIA E. WILLIAMS, Williams & Vanino, Inc., Los Angeles, California
Staff
JACQUELINE A. MACDONALD, Study Director
GREGORY K. NYCE, Senior Project Assistant
ANGELA F. BRUBAKER, Project Assistant
GREICY AMJADIVALA, Project Assistant
GEORGE Z. HORNBERGER, Intern
CINDY F. KLEIMAN, Technical Consultant
GINO BIANCHI-MOSQUERA, Technical Consultant
iii
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/2311.html
WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD
DANIEL A. OKUN, Chair, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
A. DAN TARLOCK, Vice-Chair, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago-
Kent College of Law, Chicago
J. DAN ALLEN, Chevron USA, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana
PATRICK L. BREZONIK, University of Minnesota, St. Paul
KENNETH D. FREDERICK, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
DAVID L. FREYBERG, Stanford University, Stanford, California
WILFORD R. GARDNER, University of California, Berkeley
WILLIAM L. GRAF, Arizona State University, Tempe
THOMAS M. HELLMAN, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, New York, New
York
ROBERT J. HUGGETT, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point,
Virginia
CHARLES C. JOHNSON, Consultant, Bethesda, Maryland
WILLIAM M. LEWIS, JR., University of Colorado, Boulder
CAROLYN H. OLSEN, Brown and Caldwell, Atlanta, Georgia
CHARLES R. O'MELIA, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
STAVROS S. PAPADOPULOS, S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc.,
Bethesda, Maryland
BRUCE E. RITTMANN, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
JOY B. ZEDLER, San Diego State University, San Diego, California
Staff
STEPHEN D. PARKER, Staff Director
SARAH CONNICK, Senior Staff Officer
SHEILA D. DAVID, Senior Staff Officer
CHRIS ELFRING, Senior Staff Officer
GARY D. KRAUSS, Staff Officer
JACQUELINE A. MACDONALD, Staff Officer
M. JEANNE AQUILINO, Administrative Associate
ANITA A. HALL, Administrative Assistant
GREGORY K. NYCE, Senior Project Assistant
MARY BETH MORRIS, Senior Project Assistant
ANGELA F. BRUBAKER, Project Assistant
iv
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/2311.html
BOARD ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
CHRIS G. WHIPPLE, Chair, Kaiser Engineers, Oakland, California
CHARLES FAIRHURST, Vice-Chair, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
JOHN F. AHEARNE, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina
COLIN J. ALLAN, Whiteshell Laboratory, Pinawa, Manitoba, Canada
JEAN M. BAHR, University of Wisconsin, Madison
LYNDA BROTHERS, Davis Wright Tremaine, Seattle, Washington
SOL BURSTEIN, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
MELVIN W. CARTER, Atlanta, Georgia
CARON CHESS, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey
E. WILLIAM COLGLAZIER, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
PAUL P. CRAIG, University of California, Davis
B. JOHN GARRICK, PLG, Inc., Newport Beach, California
ROBERT D. HATCHER, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
PERRY L. McCARTY, Stanford University, Stanford, California
FRED W. McLAFFERTY, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
H. ROBERT MEYER, Keystone Scientific, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado
D. KIRK NORDSTROM, U.S. Geological Survey, Boulder, Colorado
GLENN PAULSON, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago
Staff
CARL A. ANDERSON, Staff Director
PETER B. MYERS, Staff Director, retired April 30, 1993
INA B. ALTERMAN, Senior Staff Officer
ROBERT S. ANDREWS, Senior Staff Officer
KARYANIL T. THOMAS, Senior Staff Officer
DANA CAINES, Administrative Associate
VERNA BOWEN, Administrative Assistant
LISA CLENDENING, Administrative Assistant
GAYLENE DUMOUCHEL, Administrative Assistant
REBECCA BURKA, Project Assistant
DENNIS DuPREE, Project Assistant
ELIZABETH LANDRIGAN, Project Assistant
v
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/2311.html
COMMISSION ON GEOSCIENCES, ENVIRONMENT,
AND RESOURCES
M. GORDON WOLMAN, Chair, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
Maryland
PATRICK R. ATKINS, Aluminum Company of America, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
PETER EAGLESON, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
EDWARD A. FRIEMAN, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla,
California
W. BARCLAY KAMB, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
JACK E. OLIVER, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
FRANK L. PARKER, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
RAYMOND A. PRICE, Queen's University at Kingston, Ontario, Canada
THOMAS C. SCHELLING, University of Maryland, College Park
LARRY L. SMARR, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
STEVEN M. STANLEY, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL, Landers and Parsons, Tallahassee, Florida
WARREN WASHINGTON, National Center for Atmospheric Research,
Boulder, Colorado
EDITH BROWN WEISS, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington,
D.C.
Staff
STEPHEN RATTIEN, Executive Director
STEPHEN D. PARKER, Associate Executive Director
MORGAN GOPNIK, Assistant Executive Director
JEANETTE SPOON, Administrative Officer
SANDI FITZPATRICK, Administrative Associate
ROBIN ALLEN, Senior Project Assistant
vi
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/2311.html
Preface
"A little water clears us of this deed"
Macbeth, Act II, ii
Over the past 15 years, evidence has accumulated that the nation's ground
water resource, which supplies more than 50 percent of the population's
drinking water, is threatened not only by excessive overdrafts but also by
contamination caused by past and present industrial, agricultural, and
commercial activities. In the United States, it is estimated that more than
300,000 sites may have contaminated soil or ground water requiring some form
of remediation (see Table 1-2 in Chapter 1). The potential cost of these remedial
activities may be as large as $750 billion in 1993 dollars to be spent over the
next 20 to 30 years (see Chapter 1). The magnitude of the problem may be
equally significant in other industrialized countries.
The U.S. public response to this growing perception of a threatened
resource with unknown human health and ecological impacts has generally been
to demand restoration of the ground water to drinking water standards (although
the cleanup goal varies with the site, as discussed in Chapter 6). This goal of
restoration to drinking water standards is currently the primary driver of ground
water remediation activities at most sites regulated under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, also known
as the Superfund act. Restoration to potable standards has also been the goal at
other sites regulated under state laws and in some cases at sites regulated under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
The technological response to these statutory and regulatory demands over
the past decade has almost exclusively been the application
PREFACE vii
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/2311.html
of so-called "pump-and-treat" technology. Simply put, this technology involves
extracting water from the ground below the water table using standard water-
well technology. The extracted and contaminated water is then treated with
established above-ground technologies such as air stripping or adsorption on
granular activated carbon. In essence, pump-and-treat technology attempts to
flush out the contaminants and to return the contaminated area to a condition in
which water drawn from wells will meet drinking water standards without
further treatment. However, in contrast to the suggestion from Lady Macbeth
quoted above, a very large amount of water is often required to flush out even
modest amounts of contaminants, and the amount of water required to rid a site
of contamination is often unimaginably large. In essence, the United States has
been conducting a large-scale national testing program to determine if
restoration of contaminated aquifers is achievable within reasonable time
frames and at an affordable cost.
The exact number of pump-and-treat systems currently in operation in the
United States is unknown, but it may well exceed 3,000. A sufficient history of
operation of this technology now exists to assess its efficacy. Unfortunately,
and some would say not surprisingly, the effectiveness of this technology to
restore contaminated aquifers seems quite limited. This has led to a widely held
view that pump-and-treat is a failed technology and should be rejected as a
technique for ground water remediation. Thus, the United States and other
industrialized nations, as well as developing nations, are confronted with a
major dilemma: how to protect human health and the environment from
contaminated ground water without wasting resources pursuing technical
strategies that appear unable to achieve agreed-upon societal goals. A further
significant problem is how to convey these technical limitations to a public that
has grown increasingly skeptical of technologists.
In response to this dilemma, the National Research Council (NRC)
established a committee of experts to analyze the major technical and public
policy issues arising from technical limits to aquifer remediation. The
Committee on Ground Water Cleanup Alternatives was established through two
boards within the NRC: the Water Science and Technology Board and the
Board on Radioactive Waste Management. Financial support for this effort was
provided by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of
Energy (DOE), the Coalition on Superfund, and Chevron Corporation. The
boards chose 19 experts to serve on the committee, representing a broad range
of scientific and technical disciplines and stakeholders in the debate over
ground water remediation.
The scope of the committee's charge included the following questions:
PREFACE viii
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/2311.html
• What are the capabilities of pump-and-treat systems?
• What are the limits, if any, to contaminant removal from the subsurface?
• What are the capabilities of alternative or innovative technologies for
subsurface remediation, and what, if any, are the barriers to the use of
these technologies?
• What are the socioeconomic consequences of the possible failure of
ground water remediation?
• What are the possible alternative goals for ground water remediation,
and what factors should be considered in setting those goals?
• What policy alternatives should be pursued to reflect the technical
limitations to aquifer remediation?
The committee undertook a thorough evaluation of existing information
related to subsurface remediation. During nine meetings held over the past two
years, the committee heard reports from numerous private and public groups on
all aspects of ground water and soil remediation. Prominent among these were
presentations by policy analysts from the EPA's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (including its Technology Innovation Office), technical
specialists from the EPA's Ada, Oklahoma, ground water research laboratory,
researchers working on DOE efforts to deal with ground water and soil
contamination at DOE facilities, and DOE employees working on technology
development for environmental restoration. The committee also solicited views
of industry trade groups, consultants, contractors, impacted parties, and
environmental groups. Finally, the committee relied on the in-depth experience
and expertise of the committee members, most of whom are recognized leaders
in the technical, economic, risk, and policy debates surrounding this complex
subject.
Although the committee was able to review data from only a small number
of sites (approximately 80) where pump-and-treat systems have been installed,
there was strong consensus that these sites represented the range of conditions
encountered at the majority of sites with contaminated ground water. One
dominant characteristic that surfaced in all cases was the high degree of
uncertainty associated with the task of subsurface remediation. These
uncertainties begin with limitations on site characterization and the ability to
identify the nature and extent of the contamination in complex, multilayered,
and heterogeneous geologic environments, in which key physical, chemical, or
biological characteristics can vary by orders of magnitude on the scale of
centimeters. They end with uncertainties about the efficacy of any subsurface
remediation technology selected for the task in the face of this highly uncertain
hydrogeologic and geochemical environment. In between these end points, the
PREFACE ix
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the
original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be
retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/2311.html
[...]... SETTING GOALS FOR GROUND WATER CLEANUP Current Cleanup Goals Alternative Cleanup Goals Health Risks of Contaminated Ground Water Ecological Risks of Ground Water Contamination Economics of Ground Water Cleanup The Complexity of Selecting Cleanup Goals Conclusions Notes References BOXES Options for Supplying Drinking Water When Ground Water Contamination Remains in Place Point-of-Use Treatment for TCE Contamination—Elkhart,... typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup http://www.nap.edu/catalog/2311.html CONTENTS xv BOX Treatment Train for Gasoline Cleanup Long Island, New York 5 6 7 165 CHARACTERIZING SITES FOR GROUND WATER CLEANUP. .. typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup http://www.nap.edu/catalog/2311.html CONTENTS xiii Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2 1 THE GROUND WATER CLEANUP CONTROVERSY History of Ground Water Cleanup Magnitude... version for attribution Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup http://www.nap.edu/catalog/2311.html EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 to make it safe for drinking To address these concerns, the National Research Council initiated a study of ground water cleanup systems The goals of the study were to review the performance of existing pump-and-treat systems, to determine the performance capabilities of innovative cleanup. .. heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup http://www.nap.edu/catalog/2311.html xvii Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup Copyright © National Academy of Sciences... of Cleanup with Pump-and-Treat Systems Categorizing Sites for Cleanup Cleanup Times for Pump-and-Treat Systems Improving System Performance Through Process Monitoring Research Needs for Improving the Performance of Pump-andTreat Systems Conclusions Notes References BOXES Complete Restoration of Ground Water Contaminated with Gasoline—Service Station, Unidentified Location Restoration of Ground Water. .. involve installing wells at strategic locations to pump contaminated ground water to the surface for treatment Pump-and-treat systems are the most common technology for ground water cleanup in the United States The studies indicated that pump-andtreat 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,... restoring contaminated ground water, to consider the public health and economic consequences of contaminated ground water, and to provide advice on whether changes in national ground water policy are needed to reflect the limits of current technology This report presents the findings of the National Research Council's study The study was carried out by the Committee on Ground Water Cleanup Alternatives, appointed... throughout the life of the ground water cleanup system, and these data should be analyzed regularly to determine whether they are consistent with the current understanding of the site and, if not, whether changes in the remediation plan are necessary SETTING GOALS FOR GROUND WATER CLEANUP This report documents that the ability of technology to restore contaminated ground water to drinking water standards is... repository for site information Currently, accessing the large amount of existing site data from completed and ongoing ground water remediation projects is extremely difficult To increase the accessibility of data, the EPA could develop suggested formats for collection and analysis of site-specific information The EPA could also establish an easily used, publicly accessible data base for sites where ground water . immediately.
Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup
Committee on Ground Water Cleanup Alternatives,
National Research Council
Alternatives for
Ground Water Cleanup
Committee. Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Alternatives for ground water cleanup / Committee on Ground Water Cleanup Alternatives,
Water Science and Technology Board,
Ngày đăng: 06/03/2014, 09:20
Xem thêm: Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup potx, Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup potx