 |
| Photo: https://archive.epa.gov/socal/web/html/brownfields.html |
With high levels of lead, arsenic, asbestos, oil, and TCE, workers will need whole body cover (hazmat suits often called "moon suits") and respirators. After all, this site has been recognized in Federal Court to be a highly toxic site. Additionally, any equipment used at the site will need to be decontaminated, and even the equipment wash water will have to be collected and disposed of as hazardous waste. Any exposure or excavation of toxic soil will also require a dust control plan, volatiles control plan, air monitoring, and collection and treatment of all stormwater and seepage accumulating or running off the site. Water treatment will likely need to meet drinking water standards prior to discharge.
Of course, citizens who live and work nearby may just have to hope the dust control and volatiles control is working. Citizens going for lunch at Dwyer's or for coffee at Reve will not be issued government hazmat suits and respirators - we'll just be on our own.
So - what would be the alternative to DOTD excavating the site? I believe that such sites are usually left mostly undisturbed. Any especially contaminated locations within the site might be excavated, but in order to protect local people and property, most of the site would be remediated by in-situ methods like "pump and treat." In this method of remediation, wells are drilled into the contaminated layer, water is continually pumped from these wells, and the water is treated and discharged. This approach prevents further spreading of the waste, while avoiding risk of further public exposure. Furthermore, in this approach, no disturbance of the site by excavation, soil boring, pile driving, or similar activity would be allowed for decades or longer as the toxics are slowly carried to the treatment wells. This alternative has environmental, public health, and economic advantages, but is incompatible with elevated roadway, overpass bridge, or underpass construction in near future years.
 |
| Construction site dust can be difficult to control. Photo: http://cleartheairhamilton.blogspot.com/ |
great info thanks!
ReplyDeleteYes. Aggressive & thorough Bioremediation is needed before construction would take place. And as you indicate not only are best practices needed we also need additional safeguards in place before moving forward. But I refuse to believe that this can't be done and done safely. We have the opportunity to show exactly how effective, aggressive and multifaceted biological approaches can tackle problems just like this. It will take 10 years to accomplish perhaps... So be it! Let's add this requirement into our support and make it an official requirement to earn our support for the project. This is an approach that leads to a solution. Leaving the site untouched and the massive rift in our community of broken neighborhoods along the Thruway is not a solution. I see no reason why we can proceed with extreme caution. I see the opportunity to establish best practices for large scale soil remediation. And IF the problems are so great that the project is not viable then... Let that **assumption be supported by an in depth analysis of the soil samples and potential solutions. The longer we boo remediate in place the safer & more affordable the process. Please support this effort and if the findings are the worst case scenario... Then by prefacing our support with this caveat we build in an exit strategy and the alternative becomes the Teche Ridge route.
ReplyDeleteWhat are your thoughts in this regard sir?
In situ remediation could include some bio-remediation or phyto-remediation, but I think it would have to use "pump and treat." In this method, wells are placed in the contaminated soil, and pumped to pull water toward the well and prevent further migration, and also to remove contaminants by entraining them with the pumped water. The pumped water is then treated and discharged or disposed of in some way (likely injection). Sometimes other wells peripheral to the site are used to inject water, cleaning chemicals, or even steam which is then drawn toward the pumped well. Treatment of this sort can take decades, and does not remove much of some contaminants like asbestos. This is called remediation, not clean up, because it prevents the waste from being a risk, but does not 100% clean the site. The responsible parties (I'm speculating) would possibly be liable for remediation, but I think it unlikely they would have to pay for complete removal and replacement with clean soil. LDEQ called that economically and environmentally infeasible. I'm betting it would cost at least hundreds of millions, and maybe more, and would expose citizens to significant risks from air and water contamination during the cleanup.
DeleteWe do desperately need accurate data on contamination at the site. Until then all the opinions and high-cost designs are just speculation.
In situ remediation could include some bio-remediation or phyto-remediation, but I think it would have to use "pump and treat." In this method, wells are placed in the contaminated soil, and pumped to pull water toward the well and prevent further migration, and also to remove contaminants by entraining them with the pumped water. The pumped water is then treated and discharged or disposed of in some way (likely injection). Sometimes other wells peripheral to the site are used to inject water, cleaning chemicals, or even steam which is then drawn toward the pumped well. Treatment of this sort can take decades, and does not remove much of some contaminants like asbestos. This is called remediation, not clean up, because it prevents the waste from being a risk, but does not 100% clean the site. The responsible parties (I'm speculating) would possibly be liable for remediation, but I think it unlikely they would have to pay for complete removal and replacement with clean soil. LDEQ called that economically and environmentally infeasible. I'm betting it would cost at least hundreds of millions, and maybe more, and would expose citizens to significant risks from air and water contamination during the cleanup.
DeleteWe do desperately need accurate data on contamination at the site. Until then all the opinions and high-cost designs are just speculation.
Are you aware that the cut & cover design only goes down about 10' and up 10'? And that there is no retaining wall where the rail road tracks are?
ReplyDeleteThe drawings I've seen have a high wall along the railroad tracks which would prevent pedestrian crossing. Check out the illustration in the Advertiser article
Delete'Tunnel-like' I-49 segments latest option
http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/2016/05/05/tunnel-like--49-segments-latest-option/83969418/