Laserfiche WebLink
rXi+� .•�. ,� ` `�.• " .T�^ was �' � 'k4?r, ^'�v'� a <br /> � t <br /> f .. <br /> �.. File No,2070-2 <br /> 19 December 1991 <br /> Pare 12 <br /> This treattncnt altrrnativc requires :ample space for the containment basins <br /> in which the contaminated groundwater is held during the breakdown of the <br /> petroleum hydrocarbons. Further, frequent monitoring of the treatment <br /> system is required. 17ue to these constraints, we feel that this treatment <br /> method would not he advisaNe for the Rainbo Bakery site. <br /> ~ 5.2.2 Groundwater I:xtraetion and Chemical Treatment <br /> This groundwater treatment alternative first requires the extraction of the <br /> contaminated groundwater from the aquifer via a groundwater extraction <br /> system. The contaminated groundwater is then transferred, at a constant <br /> rate, through a chemical oxidation system which converts (oxidizes) the <br /> petroleum hydrocarbons to the byproducts carbon dioxide and water. The <br /> tr.atment is accomplished through the use of ultraviolet light and the <br /> catalyst hydrogen peroxide. The treated water is then discharged. <br /> Benefits of this treatment aiternative include the minimal amount of <br />�. operator attention required and the lack of production of air emission; <br /> (Proceedings of Petroleum Hydr(,carbon and Organic Chemicals in Ground <br /> Water: Prevention, Detection and Restoration, 1988). However, this <br /> treatment method is still relatively new and, consequently, not much data <br /> exists supporting its success. Therefore, we do not recommend',,,this <br /> treatment alternative for the Rai;:bo Bakery site. <br /> 5.2.3 Groundwater Extraction and Physical Treatment -- Liquid Phase <br /> Carbon Adsorption <br /> This groundwater treatment alternative first requires the extraction of the <br /> contaminated groundwater from the aquifer via a groundwater extraction <br /> system. The contaminated groundwater is then either percolated through <br /> beds of granular, activated carbon or filtered through activated carbon <br /> filters. Organic constituents have a high affinity for activated carbon and <br /> therefore adsorb to the carbon. The treated water is then discarded and <br /> the spent carbon/carbon filters, now contaminated, are either recycled ' 14 <br /> disposed in an appropriate landfill. <br /> Periodic mon,%;ring of the contaminant adsorption process is riece�,sary for <br /> this treatment method, Wher, adsorption of the contaminants .ta the carbon <br /> no longer occurs (or occurs at a noticeably lower rate), fresh car-bon/carbon <br /> filters are then installed. <br /> Benefits of this treatment alternative include the relatively low capital costs <br /> required and the limited amount of operator attendance needed. Further, ; <br /> this treatment alternative produces no air emissions. The drawback of this <br /> treatment alternative is the relatively high costs incurred for replacement ' <br /> ANDERSON <br /> V CnvSULTING <br /> GROUP <br /> �a <br /> r: <br />