• Comparison of Land Farming and Chemical Oxidation based on Environmental Footprint Analysis
  • Kim, Yun-Soo;Lim, Hyung-Suk;Park, Jae-Woo;
  • Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University;Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University;Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University;
  • 환경적 footprint 분석을 통한 토양경작법과 화학적산화법의 비교
  • 김윤수;임형석;박재우;
  • 한양대학교 건설환경공학과;한양대학교 건설환경공학과;한양대학교 건설환경공학과;
Abstract
In this study, land farming and chemical oxidation of a diesel-contaminated site is compared to evaluate the environmental impact during soil remediation using the Spreadsheet for Environmental Footprint Analysis by U.S. EPA. Each remediation process is divided into four phases, consisting of soil excavation, backfill and transportation (Phase 0), construction of remediation facility (Phase 1), remediation operation (Phase 2), and restoration of site and waste disposal (Phase 3). Environmental footprints, such as material use, energy consumption, air emission, water use and waste generation, are analyzed to find the way to minimize the environmental impact. In material use and waste generation, land farming has more environmental effect than chemical oxidation due to the concrete and backfill material used to construct land farming facility in Phase 1. Also, in energy use, land farming use about six times more energy than chemical oxidation because of cement production and fuel use of heavy machinery, such as backhoe and truck. However, carbon dioxide, commonly considered as important factor of environmental impact due to global warming effect, is emitted more in chemical oxidation because of hydrogen peroxide production. Water use of chemical oxidation is also 2.1 times higher than land farming.

Keywords: Green remediation;Footprint analysis;Life cycle assessment;Land farming;Chemical oxidation;

References
  • 1. Battelle, 2011, SiteWiseTM version 2 user guide, Battelle Memorial Institute.
  •  
  • 2. Cha, M.H., Lee, H.W., and Park, J.W., 2010, A biological complex soil treatment process using selected soil bacteria strains, J. Korea Geo-Environ. Soc., 11(5), 5-13.
  •  
  • 3. Cadotte, M., Deschênes, L., and Samson, R., 2007, Selection of a remediation scenario for a diesel-contaminated site using LCA, Int. J. LCA, 12(4), 239-251.
  •  
  • 4. Cappuyns, V., 2013, Environmental impacts of soil remediation activities: quantitative and qualitative tools applied on three case studies, J. Clean. Prod., 52(0), 145-154.
  •  
  • 5. Diamond, M.L., Page, C.A., Campbell, M., McKenna, S., and Lall, R., 1999, Life-cycle framework for assessment of site remediation options: method and generic survey, Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 18(4), 788-800.
  •  
  • 6. Hwang, S.I., 2009, Towards more efficient energy use for green remediation. J. Soil Groundw. Environ., 14(6), 95-100.
  •  
  • 7. ITRC, 2011, Green and Sustainable Remediation: State of the Science and Practice, The Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council.
  •  
  • 8. Jeong, S.W. and Suh, S., 2011, Assessment of environmental impacts and CO2 emissions from soil remediation technologies using Life Cycle Assessment - Case studies on SVE and biopile systems -, J. Korean Soc. Environ. Eng., 33(4), 20-30.
  •  
  • 9. Kim, D.H., Hwang, B.R., Moon, D.H., Kim, Y.H., and Baek, K., 2013, Environmental assessment on a soil washing process of a pb-contaminated shooting range site: a case study, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 20(12), 8417-8424.
  •  
  • 10. Morais, S.A. and Delerue-Matos, C., 2010, A perspective on LCA application in site remediation services: critical review of challenges, J. Hazard. Mater., 175, 12-22.
  •  
  • 11. Mulligan, C.N. and Yong, R.N., 2004, Natural attenuation of contaminated soils, Environ. Int., 30(4), 587-601.
  •  
  • 12. Petruzzi, N.M., 2011, A case study on the evaluation and implementation of green and sustainable remediation principles and practices during a RCRA corrective action cleanup, Groundw. Monit. R., 31(2), 63-71.
  •  
  • 13. SurF-UK, 2010, A Framework for Assessing the Sustainability of Soil and Groundwater Remediation.
  •  
  • 14. SurF-US, 2009, Sustainable Remediation White Paper-Integrating Sustainable Principles, Practices, and Metrics Into Remediation Projects.
  •  
  • 15. US EPA, 2008, Green Remediation : Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites.
  •  
  • 16. US EPA, 2012, Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project’s Environmental Footprint.
  •  

This Article

  • 2015; 20(3): 7-14

    Published on Jun 30, 2015

  • 10.7857/JSGE.2015.20.3.007
  • Received on Aug 1, 2014
  • Revised on Dec 5, 2014
  • Accepted on Dec 6, 2014