ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0012541 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

� FFEE", - W. s �'`:M- , �€ rte" _ �-• � �-� _ ,�, BEMIRE MEN! wY r �I File No.2070-2 19 Dccembcr 1991 Pap: 13 - and disposal of the carbon/Carbon Filters (mainienan,e of the system). However, this treatment Aternative could be viable for relatively small : remediatioa projects, such as the Rainbo Bakery. - 5.2.4 Groundwater Extraction and Physical 'Treatment - Vapor Phase Carbon Adsorption This groundwater treatment alternative first requ;res the extraction of the contaminated groundwater from the aquifer via a groundwater extraction system. The contaminants are then transferred to elle vapor phase (transferred from a liquid medium to a vapor medium) by running air currents though the contaminated groundwater. The treated groundwater is then discharged. The air, now hosting the contaminants, is then either 1) released directly to the atmosphere, or 2) passed through activated i carbon filters where the contaminants adsorb to the carbon. If (;�or. filters are utilized, disposal of the spent carbon f-tars would be necessary, as with the previously discussed treatment alternative. Limits on the direct release of contaminated air to the atmosphere are enforced by local Air Pollution Control Districts. Obtaining a permit.to release the contaminated air directly to the atmosphere may be difficult (Proceedings of Petroleum Hydrocarbon and Organic Chemicals in Ground ti Water: Prevention, Detection and Restoration, 1988). Even utilizing �. activated carbon filters with this treatment alternative still results in the release of some air emissions to the atmosphere. Since this method ultimately produces air emissions, it is subject to restrictions and permitting processes of the local Air Pollution Control District. Due to this constraint, we do not recommend this treatment alternative for the Rainbo Bakery site. ,. 5.3 Disposal of Treated Groundwater Following treatment of the contaminated groundwater via one of the above-described treatrilent w alternatives, the groundwater is then discarded. The easiest and Ieast costly method of discarding the treated groundwater woLld be to directly discharge it to the sanitary sewer system or the storm drain system. During our investigation, we researched the possibility of direct disposal of the treated groundwater to both the sanitary sewer system and the storm drain system. As of June 1991, the Stockton Municipal ]Utilities District no longer would allow discharge of groundwater, whether treated or not, to the Stockton sanitary sewer system. We,contacted the Regional Water Quality Control Board concerning their restrictions for discharge to the storm drain system. The RWQCB indicated that a waste disposal permit must bt obtained prior to di3charge. Each site is assessed on -an individual basis as to whether a Waste Disposal permit will he ],sued. According to the RWQCB, evaluation of the permit is usually a lengthy and potentially costly process. Additionally, upon tssessment, the RWQCB may chose to deny the permit. ANO0!N CONSULT]NGER5 GROUP 1i, _