Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup (1994) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
1 The Ground Water Cleanup Controversy
1 The Ground Water Cleanup Controversy
Pages 19-34
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 19... ...
Evidence suggests that restoring contaminated ground water to drinking water standards poses considerable technical challenges that may sometimes be insurmountable. For example, at one New Jersey site, a computer manufacturing company spent $10 million removing toxic solvents from ground water, but not long after the cleanup system was shut down the solvent concentrations in some locations returned to levels higher than before cleanup began (see Box 1-1~.
|
From page 20... ...
It assesses whether conventional and innovative cleanup technologies are capable of restoring contaminated ground water to drinking water quality. It reviews physical and chemical factors that impede cleanup regardless of the technology chosen.
|
From page 21... ...
In addition, the committee invited people with a stake in ground water cleanup citizens whose lives have been affected by contamination and industries that have invested large sums in cleanup to present their viewpoints at committee meetings. HISTORY OF GROUND WATER CLEANUP Ground water contamination is relatively new on the nation's list of recognized environmental problems.
|
From page 22... ...
to sue parties responsible for the contamination to recover cleanup costs; these groups have since become known as "potentially responsible parties." In 1984, Congress broadened the nation's ground water cleanup program by amending the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to require cleanup of contamination at active facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste.
|
From page 23... ...
Though scientists recognized the ground water contamination problem long before the general public and government agencies, until recently only a few researchers were studying ground water cleanup technologies. At a 1961 conference on ground water contamination sponsored by the U.S.
|
From page 24... ...
When used, stored, or disposed of on land, these chemicals may eventually migrate to the ground water below. Common causes of ground water contamination are accidental spills; intentional dumping; and leaks in storage tanks, industrial waste pits, and municipal or industrial landfills.
|
From page 25... ...
:~ p! 1 ~ Excavation of a leaking underground storage tank.
|
From page 26... ...
active hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities requiring cleanup under RCRA; 3. facilities with leaking underground storage tanks (used for storing gasoline and other fuels, as well as various chemicals used in manufacturing)
|
From page 27... ...
However, it is extremely impor TABLE 1-2 Number of Hazardous Waste Sites Where Ground Water May Be Contaminated Source of Estimate Office of Russell et al., Technology Site Category EPA, 1993 1991 Assessment, 1989 CERCLA National 2,000 3,000 10,000 Priorities List RCRA corrective 1,500-3,500 NA 2,000-5,000 action Leaking 295,000 365,000 300,000-400,000 underground storage tanks Department of 7,300 Defense (at 1,800 installations) 7,300 8,139 Department of 4,000 Energy (at 110 installations)
|
From page 28... ...
tent to recognize that the magnitude of the contamination problem varies widely at these sites. Ground water contamination from a single leaking underground storage tank at a gas station affects a relatively small area and, as discussed in Chapter 3, is relatively easy to clean up.
|
From page 29... ...
CAPABILITIES OF CLEANUP TECHNOLOGIES The rate at which new contaminated sites have been discovered has far exceeded the evolution of cleanup technologies (McCarty, 1990~. A1most all ground water cleanup systems currently installed and planned involve variations of a technology called "pump and treat." Pump-andtreat systems operate by pumping ground water to the surface, removing the contaminants, and then either recharging the treated water into the ground or discharging it to a surface water body or municipal sewage plant (see Box 1-2~.
|
From page 30... ...
_ _ ~ t;~W -A ~ ~ ~ ,~o,~/ ~ - A- _ ~'4 ::: ~ ~ @~ ~ ~3 Cat .4 WATER TABLE OVERB ~ED SILT CLAY BEDROCK fLOW UNE CONDITIONS 5~1'; i' ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
|
From page 31... ...
. THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND POLICY The results of the studies of the late 1980s and early 1990s led many people to question whether the risk reduction that pump-and-treat systems achieve is worth their cost.
|
From page 32... ...
That the ability of technology to restore contaminated ground water was in question was not known beyond a limited group of scientists when Congress enacted the major ground water cleanup laws. As a re sult, current ground water cleanup policies rest on the assumption that restoring contaminated ground water is technically straightforward.
|
From page 33... ...
2. Although the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 included limited provisions for ground water cleanup at active hazardous waste sites and the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 called for protecting ground water from subsurface injection of waste, ground water cleanup did not receive major national emphasis until after CERCLA's passage.
|
From page 34... ...
Pp. 50-56 in Ground Water Contamination: Proceedings of the 1961 Symposium, Cincinnati, Ohio, April 5-7, 1961.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.