Selection of a remediation scenario for a diesel-contaminated site using LCA

  • Myriam Cadotte
  • Louise Deschênes
  • Réjean Samson
LCA Case Studies

Abstract

Goal and Scope

A comparison of in situ and ex situ treatment scenarios for a diesel-contaminated site was performed using an evolutive LCA. Treatment time along with primary (residual contamination left in soil or groundwater after treatment) and secondary (impacts due to remediation) environmental impacts were considered. The site under study had a light Non Aqueous Phase Liquid (LNAPL) thickness of up to 1 m, a diesel soil concentration of 10,500 mg/kg and a residual contamination in groundwater.

Methods

Four treatment scenarios to remove LNAPL and to treat soil and groundwater were compared: 1) pump and treat 2) bioslurping, bioventing and biosparging 3) bioslurping, bioventing and chemical oxidation and 4) ex situ treatment using biopiles. The technologies’ design was performed using simulation tools and analytical equations. The LCA was evaluated for each year of treatment. Environmental impacts were assessed using the U.S. EPA Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI) method.

Results and Discussion

The biological in situ scenario (2) showed the least primary and secondary impacts but its treatment time was more than 4 times longer than that obtained for the ex situ scenario (4). The ex situ scenario showed the best treatment time but its secondary impacts were significantly higher than those found for the biological in situ scenario due to the pavement of the treatment area. The combined biological and chemical in situ scenario (3) was the worst in terms of secondary impacts while the pump and treat scenario (1) was the worst in terms of primary impacts. Two scenarios were selected: one based upon low environmental impacts and the other on the fastest treatment time.

Conclusions

Even without excavation, an in situ treatment can generate more secondary impacts than an ex situ treatment. Low environmental impact scenarios require time while rapid treatment scenarios generate high environmental impacts. The selection of the best remediation scenario will depend on the site owner’s priority.

Recommendations

Better characterization factors for aggregated substances are required.

Keywords

Contaminated soil contaminated groundwater diesel life cycle assessment primary impact secondary impact TRACI method treatment time ex situ remediation in situ remediation 

References

  1. [1]
    Page C, Diamond M, Campbell M, Mckenna S (1999): Life-Cycle Framework for Assessment of Site Remediation Options: Case Study. Environ Toxicol Chem 18(4) 801–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Diamond M, Page C, Campbell M, Mckenna S, Lall R (1999): Life-Cycle Framework for Assessment of Site Remediation Options: Method and Generic Survey. Environ Toxicol Chem 18(4) 788–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Volkwein S, Hurtig H-W, Klöpffer W (1999): Life Cycle Assessment of Contaminated Sites Remediation. Int J LCA 4(5) 263–274Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Blanc A, Métivier-Pignon H, Gourdon R, Rousseaux P (2004): Life Cycle Assessment as a Tool for Controlling the Development of Technical Activities: Application to the Remediation of a Site Contaminated by Sulfur. Advances in Environmental Research, 8, 613–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Toffoletto L, Deschênes L, Samson R (2005): LCA of Ex-Situ Bioremediation of Diesel-Contaminated Soil. Int J LCA 10(6) 406–416Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Bender A, Volkwein S, Battermann G, Hurtig H-W, Klöpffer W, Kohler W (1998): Life Cycle Assessment for Remedial Action Techniques: Methodology and Application. Contaminated Soil. Thomas Telford, London, pp 367–376Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Godin J, Ménard J-F, Hains S, Walker D, Deschênes L, Samson R (2004): Combined Use of Life Cycle Assessment and Site-Specific Groundwater Fate and Transport Assessment to Support a Contaminated Site Management Decision. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 10(6) 1099–1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Dontigny J (2004): Analyse environnementale de scénarios de gestion de sols contaminés de la Ville de Montréal. Mémoire de maîtrise en Génie Chimique. École Polytechnique de Montréal, 239 ppGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Centre d’Expertise en Analyse Environnementale du Québec [CEAEQ] (2001): Dosage des hydrocarbures pétroliers (C10 à C50) dans l’eau. Ministère de l’environnement du Québec, Québec (MA.400-HYD.1.0), 14 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Unger A (1995): Compflow. Waterloo UniversityGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Leeson A, Hinchee RE (1996): Principles and Practices of Bioventing Volume II: Bioventing Design. Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, 109 ppGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence [Afcfee] (1996): Bioventing Performance and Cost Results from Multiple Air Force Test Sites. Technology Demonstration Final Technical Memorandum USAF. contract no. F33615-90-D-4014Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Molson J (2002): BIONAPL/3D: A 3D Model for Groundwater Flow, Multicomponent NAPL Dissolution and Biodegradation User Guide. Waterloo UniversityGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Watts RJ (1992): Hydrogen peroxide for physicochemically degrading petroleum-contaminated soils. Remediation Journal 2 413–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Spencer C, Stanton P, Watts R (1996): A Central Composite Rotatable Analysis for the Catalyzed Hydrogen Peroxide Remediation of Diesel-Contaminated. Soil J Air & Waste Manage Assoc 46, 1067–1074Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Edwards DA, Andriot MD, Amoruso MA, Tummey AC, Bevan CJ, Tveit A, Hayes LA, Youngren SH, Nakles DV (1997): Development of Fraction Specific Reference Doses (RfD’s) and Reference Concentration (RfC’s) for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Total petroleum hydrocarbon criteria working group series, Vol. 4. Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amerherst, 125 ppGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Macdonald MG, Harbaugh W (1988): A modular three-dimensional finite-difference ground-water flow model (Modflow). Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, 576 pp (06-A1 USGS)Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Clement TP (1998): A modular computer code for simulating reactive multi-species transport in 3-Dimensional groundwater systems (RT3D). Pacific North West National LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Pré Consultants (1997): Simapro. Version 5. LCA software including US LCI DatabaseGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Pré Consultants (2004): Simapro. Version 6. LCA Software including EcoInvent DatabaseGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    (2002): Excel. MICROSOFT. [software]Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    (2004): Matlab. Version 7.0.0.19920 R14. [software]Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Heijungs R, Suh S (2002): The Computational Structure of Life Cycle Assessment. Eco-Efficiency in Industry and Science Vol 11, Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Hydro-Québec (2003): Sources d’approvisionnement énergétique d’Hydro-QuébecGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Beardsley M, Lindhjem CE (1998): Exhaust Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling — Compression Ignition. U.S. EPA Office of Mobile Sources, Assessment and Modeling Division, (NR-009), 26 ppGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Beardsley M, Lindhjem CE (1998): Exhaust Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling — Spark Ignition. U.S. EPA Office of Mobile Sources, Assessment and Modeling Division, (NR-010), 32 ppGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Bare JC, Norris GA, Pennington DW, Mckone T (2003): TRACI Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts. J Ind Ecol 6(3–4) 49–78Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Rosembaum R (2003): IMPACTS 2002+: A New Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology. Int J LCA 8(6) 324–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Bare J (2004): U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development National Risk Management Research Laboratory Sustainable Technology DivisionGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Ministère de l’environnement du Québec [Menv] (2001): Critères de qualité de l’eau de surface au Québec. Gouvernement du Québec, QuébecGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry — Atsdr (1995): Toxicological Profile for Fuels Oils. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services — Public Health Service, Georgia, 231 ppGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Lu G, Clement T, Zheng C, Wiedemeier T (1999): Natural Attenuation of BTEX Compounds: Model Development and Field-Scale Application. Ground Water 37(5) 707–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    Reisinger H, Mountain S, Anddreotti G, Diluise G, Porta A, Hullman A, Owens V, Arlotti D, Godfrey J (1996): Bioremediation of a Major Inland Oil Spill Using a Comprehensive Integrated Approach. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium and Exhibition on Environmental Contamination in Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Poland, September 10–13Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Myriam Cadotte
    • 1
  • Louise Deschênes
    • 1
  • Réjean Samson
    • 1
  1. 1.Interpretation and Management of Products, Processes and Services, École Polytechnique de Montréal, Chemical Engineering DepartmentCIRAIG-Interuniversity Reference Center for the Life Cycle AssessmentMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations