2.6 LNAPL and DNAPL Remediation in France
ADEME (French Environment and Energy Management Agency) has recently
published a report breaking down the cost as well as the implementation rate of
various remediation techniques (ADEME and Ernst & Young 2014). This report was
based on a questionnaire sent to soil remediation professionals (research and operations consultancies). Figure 2.21 displays the type of pollutants treated in groundwater remediation sites in France in 2012. It also shows that organic compounds,
which can be present as LNAPL or DNAPL, represent the majority of pollutants
encountered in these sites (53%).
The study also reports the different types of groundwater treatment techniques
implemented in France in 2012 (Table 2.9).
More specifically, Table 2.10 shows the distribution of remediation techniques
for TPH and chlorinated compounds.
With regards to TPH, free product recovery with skimming is the most
implemented technique (33%), ahead of pump-and-treat, and bioslurping (respectively, 30% and 18%), making extraction techniques the most frequently used for
treating TPH (80%). This is a logical approach since these techniques focus on free
product recovery which is the first step of the treatment. With the exception of pumpand-treat, which deals with both the free product and the dissolved phase, techniques
Other pollutants
Total petroleum hydrocarbons
Chlorinated compounds
Metals and metalloids
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene
Fig. 2.21 Pollutants treated in 2012 on groundwater remediation sites located in France (ADEME
and Ernst & Young 2014)
Table 2.9 Classification of main treatment techniques and methods for groundwater remediation
by volume treated in 2012 (in m
3
)—excludes industrial waste (ADEME and Ernst & Young 2014)
Technique
Type
Volumes (m
3 in place)
Level of use (%)
Pump-and-treat
On site
1,287,800
49.00
Sparging/biosparging
In situ
486,800
19.00
Bioslurping
In situ
327,000
13.00
Free product recovery with skimming
On site
322,200
12.00
Bioaugmentation/biostimulation
In situ
105,300
4.00
Reduction/oxidation (redox)
In situ
76,000
3.00
Permeable reactive barrier
In situ
1,900
0.07
Total
2,607,000
98
S. Colombano et al.
ADEME (French Environment and Energy Management Agency) has recently
published a report breaking down the cost as well as the implementation rate of
various remediation techniques (ADEME and Ernst & Young 2014). This report was
based on a questionnaire sent to soil remediation professionals (research and operations consultancies). Figure 2.21 displays the type of pollutants treated in groundwater remediation sites in France in 2012. It also shows that organic compounds,
which can be present as LNAPL or DNAPL, represent the majority of pollutants
encountered in these sites (53%).
The study also reports the different types of groundwater treatment techniques
implemented in France in 2012 (Table 2.9).
More specifically, Table 2.10 shows the distribution of remediation techniques
for TPH and chlorinated compounds.
With regards to TPH, free product recovery with skimming is the most
implemented technique (33%), ahead of pump-and-treat, and bioslurping (respectively, 30% and 18%), making extraction techniques the most frequently used for
treating TPH (80%). This is a logical approach since these techniques focus on free
product recovery which is the first step of the treatment. With the exception of pumpand-treat, which deals with both the free product and the dissolved phase, techniques
Other pollutants
Total petroleum hydrocarbons
Chlorinated compounds
Metals and metalloids
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene
Fig. 2.21 Pollutants treated in 2012 on groundwater remediation sites located in France (ADEME
and Ernst & Young 2014)
Table 2.9 Classification of main treatment techniques and methods for groundwater remediation
by volume treated in 2012 (in m
3
)—excludes industrial waste (ADEME and Ernst & Young 2014)
Technique
Type
Volumes (m
3 in place)
Level of use (%)
Pump-and-treat
On site
1,287,800
49.00
Sparging/biosparging
In situ
486,800
19.00
Bioslurping
In situ
327,000
13.00
Free product recovery with skimming
On site
322,200
12.00
Bioaugmentation/biostimulation
In situ
105,300
4.00
Reduction/oxidation (redox)
In situ
76,000
3.00
Permeable reactive barrier
In situ
1,900
0.07
Total
2,607,000
98
S. Colombano et al.