Abstract
In this study, an environmental assessment on a soil washing process for the remediation of a Pb-contaminated shooting range site was conducted, using a green and sustainable remediation tool, i.e., SiteWise ver. 2, based on data relating specifically to the actual remediation project. The entire soil washing process was classified into four major stages, consisting of soil excavation (stage I), physical separation (stage II), acid-based (0.2 N HCl) chemical extraction (stage III), and wastewater treatment (stage IV). Environmental footprints, including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, energy consumption, water consumption, and critical air pollutant productions such as PM10, NO x , and SO x , were calculated, and the relative contribution of each stage was analyzed in the environmental assessment. In stage I, the relative contribution of the PM10 emissions was 55.3 % because the soil excavation emitted the fine particles. In stage II, the relative contribution of NO x and SO x emissions was 42.5 and 52.5 %, respectively, which resulted from electricity consumption for the operation of the separator. Stage III was the main contributing factor to 63.1 % of the GHG emissions, 67.5 % of total energy used, and 37.4 % of water consumptions. The relatively high contribution of stage III comes from use of consumable chemicals such as HCl and water-based extraction processes. In stage IV, the relative contributions of GHG emissions, total energy used, and NO x and SO x emissions were 23.2, 19.4, 19.5, and 25.3 %, respectively, which were caused by chemical and electricity demands for system operation. In conclusion, consumable chemicals such as HCl and NaOH, electric energy consumption for system operation, and equipment use for soil excavation were determined to be the major sources of environmental pollution to occur during the soil washing process. Especially, the acid-based chemical extraction process should be avoided in order to improve the sustainability of soil washing processes.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Battelle Memorial Institute (2011) SiteWiseTM version 2 user guide
Bayer P, Finkel M (2006) Life cycle assessment of active and passive groundwater remediation technologies. J Contam Hydrol 83:171–199
Cadotte M, Deschênes L, Samson R (2007) Selection of a remediation scenario for a diesel-contaminated site using LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:239–251
Forum USSR (2009) Sustainable remediation white paper—integrating sustainable principles, practices, and metrics into remediation projects. Rem J 19:5–114
Harbottle MJ, Al-Tabbaa A, Evans CW (2007) A comparison of the technical sustainability of in situ stabilisation/solidification with disposal to landfill. J Hazard Mater 141:430–440
Higgins MR, Olson TM (2009) Life-cycle case study comparison of permeable reactive barrier versus pump-and-treat remediation. Environ Sci Technol 43:9432–9438
Hu X, Zhu J, Ding Q (2011) Environmental life-cycle comparisons of two polychlorinated biphenyl remediation technologies: incineration and base catalyzed decomposition. J Hazard Mater 191:258–268
Kim D-H, Jung J-M, Jo S-U, Kim W-S, Baek K (2012) Photovoltaic powered electrokinetic restoration of saline soil. Sep Sci Technol 47:2235–2240
Lemming G (2010) Environmental assessment of contaminated site remediation in a life cycle perspective. PhD thesis, September 2010, Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark http://www2.er.dtu.dk/publications/fulltext/2010/ENV2010-164.pdf
Lemming G, Hauschild M, Bjerg P (2010) Life cycle assessment of soil and groundwater remediation technologies: literature review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:115–127
MOE (2007) Guideline for contaminated soil remediation methods
MOE (2008) Clean air conservation act
MOE (2012) National LCI DB
Morais SA, Delerue-Matos C (2010) A perspective on LCA application in site remediation services: critical review of challenges. J Hazard Mater 175:12–22
Page CA, Diamond ML, Campbell M, McKenna S (1999) Life-cycle framework for assessment of site remediation options: case study. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:801–810
Payet J, Ribak S (2008) Integrating multiple scale impact assessment on ecosystems for contaminated site management. Final research report
ScanRail Consult (2000) Environmental/economic evaluation and optimising of contaminated sites remediation—method to involve environmental assessment. EU LIFE Project no. 96 ENV/DK/0016
Suer P, Andersson-Sköld Y (2011) Biofuel or excavation?—life cycle assessment (LCA) of soil remediation options. Biomass Bioenergy 35:969–981
Suèr P, Nilsson-Påledal S, Norrman J (2004) LCA for site remediation: a literature review. Soil Sediment Contam 13:415–425
Suthersan S, Schnobrich M, Mancini K, McLaughlin C, Potter S (2012) Artesian treatment vessels: a sustainable in situ remediation system. Ground Water Monit Rem 32:37–42
Toffoletto L, Deschênes L, Samson R (2005) LCA of ex-situ bioremediation of diesel-contaminated soil (11 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:406–416
USEPA (2008a) Green remediation: incorporating sustainable environmental practices into remediation of contaminated site. EPA 542/R/08/002
USEPA (2008b) Incorporating sustainable practices into site remediation. EPA 542/F/08/002
Volkwein S, Hurtig H-W, Klöpffer W (1999) Life cycle assessment of contaminated sites remediation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4:263–274
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by National Research Foundation (NRF) (grant number 2012R1A1A2007941)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, DH., Hwang, BR., Moon, DH. et al. Environmental assessment on a soil washing process of a Pb-contaminated shooting range site: a case study. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20, 8417–8424 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-1599-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-1599-8