Laserfiche WebLink
✓r <br /> I <br /> File No.2070-2 <br /> 19 December 1991 <br /> Pepe 12 <br /> --� <br /> This treatment alternative requires ample space for the cantamsnent of the <br /> basl��s <br /> h the contarninated groundwater is held during the o f Vie°treatment <br /> in whit Further, frequent monitoring <br /> petroleum hydrocarbons• <br /> system is required. Due to these constraints, we feel that this treatment <br /> r <br /> method would not be advisable for the Rainbo Bakery site. <br /> cal Treatment <br /> 5.2Groundwater Extractioc and ��' wires the extraction of the <br /> This groundwaterreatment from leveaquifer v a a groundwater extraction <br /> -�- contaminated g• <br /> groundwater then transferred, at a constant <br /> system. The contaminated g� s,em which converts (oxidizes) the <br /> rate, through a chemical oxidation sy <br /> pp hydrocarbons to the byproducts carbon dioxide and water. The <br /> treatment is accomplished through the use of ultraviolet light and e <br /> hydrogen peroxide. The treated water is then discharged. <br /> catalyst <br /> nt <br /> lack <br /> of production of air emissions <br /> .� Benefits of this treatment alternative; include the minimal �ouroun f <br /> operator attention required and oanlc Chemicals in G <br /> Hydrocarbon and Ora 19$8) However, this <br /> (proceedings of 1'etroDe a tt and Restoration, not much data <br /> Water: Prevention, <br /> Therefore, we do not recommend this <br /> treatment method is stili relatively new and, consequently, <br /> exists supporting its success. <br /> treatment alternative for the Rainbo Bakery site. _ L1 u1d Phase <br /> tori�' <br /> 5.2.3 Groundwater Fxtrac[ion and Physical Treatment q <br /> `a Carbon Adsorption <br /> !.,;. <br /> This g die aquifer via a groundwater extraction <br /> groundwater treatment alternative first requires the extraction °f e <br /> t a groundwater <br /> from pe activated <br /> through <br /> contaminated g roundwater is then either p activated carbon <br /> .:n system; The contaminated gDugh <br /> beds oi' granular, activated carbon or filtered dity for activated carbon and <br /> i a h afr <br /> filters. Organic constituents have a eigreatednwater is then discarded and <br /> i therefu:G adsorb to the carbon. Th <br /> are either recycled or <br /> the spent carbonlcfrrboiateil t rs, now contaminated, <br /> disposed in an appropriate <br /> ,& tion process is necessary for <br /> Periodic monitoring of the contaminant adsorpInts to the carbon <br /> 1 this treatment lower rate),method. When adsorption of the crate),te), fresh arbonlcarbon <br /> F no longer occurs (or occurs at a noticeably <br /> filters are then installed. low capital costs <br /> lent;., Further, <br /> Benefits of d is t�atn amounts of operator attendance needed. <br /> required an t produces no air emissions. The drawback of this <br /> + this treatment alternative P costs incurred for replacement <br /> treatment alternative is the relatively high alloeasoH <br /> CCN5UiriNG <br /> �'•. GROUP <br /> L <br /> S <br />