Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
ECONOMIC, LEGAL, AND PRACTICAL PROBLEMS IN HAZARDOUS WASTE 169 CLEANUP AND MANAGEMENT original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be 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 retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. to weigh the social, technical, economic, and policy considerations. For example, we must consider ⢠actual risk to public health and safety from the contamination; ⢠impacts on the designated use of surface and groundwater protection for drinking water, propagation of fish and wildlife, and so on; ⢠existing and future land use potentially affected by migration of the pollutants; ⢠available cleanup technology; and ⢠available financial resources. Harris Corporation A case in point involves the cleanup of a contaminated drinking water supply for the protection of public health. Discharges from Harris Corporation's electrical component manufacturing operations near Melbourne resulted in contamination of groundwater at the site in addition to contamination of a well field used by the General Development Utilities Corporation (GDU) just south of the Harris plant. Thus, this case involves a clash between two corporate giants. Under a consent agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), Harris has stopped its discharges into potable ground-water and will treat the contaminated groundwater by aeration. The water is contaminated by 13 volatile organic compounds at concentrations of up to 15,000 parts per billion each, and will be treated to bring the concentrations within Florida's drinking water standards. Initially, Harris offered to supply the treated water to GDU for use as drinking water. GDU refused, citing public relations reasons and a lack of confidence that the treated water would consistently meet drinking water standards. GDU prefers that Harris furnish a new well field, but Harris's position is that cleaning up the old one is sufficient. The current plan is that once full-scale treatment begins, the treated water will be wasted and discharged to surface waters unless another use is found. It cannot be used to recharge the aquifer because of hydrological considerations. If GDU refuses to take the water after one year, Harris will be required to find another use for it. The dilemma here is that, despite water quality standards, it is not always technically possible to achieve them. In this case, for instance, no one is sure how clean we can make the aquifer itself through pumping. The goal will be to treat the water remaining in the aquifer to a level that will prevent contamination of adjacent waters and leave the water suitable for future "reasonable and beneficial uses" such as drinking water. We plan to review the situation
