Groundwater extraction

The Brio refining site is approximately 58 acres in size and is the location of a former chemical production, recovery, refinery, and regeneration facility. The site includes closed impoundments into which hazardous substances were disposed in bulk, storage tanks, and approximately 1,750 drums of hazardous substances. Remediation activities included the excavation and incineration of contaminated soil, installation of protective liners around selected pits, and the installation of a groundwater extraction system adjacent to a gully. 

Level 1 For each River Basin, identification of the existing problems and their possible causes (the same problem can be originated for more than one cause). For example, the problem No demand satisfaction can be caused by water transfers, surface water and groundwater extraction, agricultural and farm activities (water pollution), a lack of urban and industrial wastewater treatment, Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), etc. 

Environmental impacts Continued impact from existing conditions Would be some migration of contaminant pluma as part of attenuation process Vapor extraction may affect air quality and odors although it will meet emission standards would be aquifer drawdown during groundwater extraction See Alternative 3 fixation may also affect air quality and produce odors Incineration may affect air quality by producing odors, although if will meet emission standards... 

Simple to extend groundwater extraction system, vapor extraction system, and cap however, if significant metal concentration are present in Area 2, may need additional soil treatment or would need to extend cap... 

Groundwater Extraction for Pump-and-Treat and Drinking Water Treatment 1030... 

Groundwater extraction Ex situ hydrogen peroxide, or permanganate into die subsurface to oxidize contaminants Extraction of contaminated... 

Effect of the Properties of MTBE and Other Oxygenates on Groundwater Extraction... 

Because of the high water solubility of oxygenates, groundwater extraction may be effective in removing a significant mass of these contaminants. Key factors that affect the performance and cost of the extraction component of a pump-and-treat system include... 

The properties of MTBE (high water solubility and low organic/water partition coefficient) make it amenable to groundwater extraction. 

U.S. EPA, Eight Service Stations in Maryland Soil Vapor Extraction and Groundwater Extraction Used to Treat Soil and Groundwater, MTBE Case Study, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, July 2000. 

Bioslurping is most effective in fine- to medium-textured soils, where there is a significant quantity of LNAPL and associated soil contamination at the water table, with minimum drawdown and groundwater extraction. The practical maximum depth of liquid recovery is suction lift (27 ft of water column). 

Hinchee, R. E., Downey, D. C., and Coleman, E. J., 1987, Enhancing Bioreclamation, Soil Venting, and Groundwater Extraction A Cost Effectiveness and Feasibility Comparison In Proceedings of the National Water Well Association and American Petroleum Institute Conference on Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Groundwater Prevention, Detection and Restoration, November, pp. 147-163. 

Groundwater Extraction with methylene chloride clean-up by column chromatography i f requi red GC/FPD (EPA method 8140)... 

Phase-transfer oxidation is a technology for destruction of organic contaminants. It was developed to treat contaminated liquid streams using adsorption for contaminant removal and advanced oxidation processes for spent adsorbent regeneration. It was used in testing to treat the contaminated effluent from groundwater extraction technologies. 

During the demonstration at Kelly Air Force Base, capital costs were 115,000 for a 490-liter/min Perox-Pure unit at Site E-1 and 241,000 for a 940-liter/min system at Site E-3. Based on a retention time of 2 min and a hydrogen peroxide concentration of 50 mg/liter, the operation and maintenance (O M) costs at the E-1 Site were 2800 per month. At the E-3 Site, the Perox-Pure unit operated using a hydrogen peroxide concentration of 100 mg/liter and a retention time of 4 min. The O M costs were 13,000 per month. O M costs for both sites included all required chemicals but excluded the costs associated with pretreatment and groundwater extraction systems (D19079Y, p. 3-3). 

The Stripperator was used as part of a pump-and-treat system installed at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. This system, which was used to remove VOCs, had an average cost of 95,000 per pound of contaminant removed. According to the U.S. Navy, 175,000 was spent on the system to remove 3 lb of contaminants, and 325,000 was spent to remove an additional 0.5 lb. The Navy claims that the high cost of treatment at the site resulted from inefficiencies in groundwater extraction methods and was not caused by the use of the Stripperator (D22770N, p. ES-1, ES-3, 3-18-3-28). 

The process of anaerobic biotransformation with steam injection is a technology for the in situ remediation of soils and groundwater contaminated with dense non-aqueous-phase liquids (DNAPLs). Using this approach for remediation, steam is injected into the soil to volatilize and remove DNAPLs, with the simultaneous introduction of nutrients. The resulting subsurface conditions are suitable for biotransformation of the dissolved phase, into compounds that are more easily removed by vapor and groundwater extraction. 

Geokinetics International, Inc., has developed other applications for this technology as weU. It can be set up as an electrokinetic ring fence to recover ionic contamination from groundwater as it flows past the electrodes. It may also be used as a soil heating element in conjunction with soil vapor or groundwater extraction to remove organics from soil. 

Based on 1997 data, the estimated cost of a permeable reactive barrier (PRB) system ranged from approximately 405,000, corresponding to 1400 per 1000 gal of groundwater extracted to 585,000, corresponding to 225 per 1000 gal of groundwater extracted. The capital costs... 

According to the vendor, this technology provides major cost benefits relative to other technologies by significantly reducing the volume of groundwater extracted to meet remediation goals... 

---