I GROUNDWATER PILOT TEST I Crossley Farm Site … · I , SDMSIfcdD 2071075 . I . • : •-I GROUNDWATER PILOT TEST I Crossley Farm Site Hereford Township, Pennsylvani' a FOR I UNITED

I , SDMSIfcdD 2071075 .

I . • : •-

I GROUNDWATER PILOT TESTI Crossley Farm Site

Hereford Township, Pennsylvania'

FOR

I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL| PROTECTION AGENCY

WORK ASSIGNMENT NUMBER 045-RDRD-03S2I RAC 3 PROGRAM- Contract Number 68-S6-3003

_ SEPTEMBER 2003

i • ' ' ' ' ^ - • . v . ' - • -

TETRA TECH NUS, INC.

IIIIiIIIiiiiiiiiiii

PHIL-17407

GROUNDWATER PILOT TEST

CROSSLEY FARM SITEHEREFORD TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA

EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT NUMBER 045-RDRD-03S2CONTRACT NUMBER 68-S6-3003

TETRA TECH NUS PROJECT NUMBER 4191

Tetra Tech NUS, Incorporated600 Clark Avenue, Suite 3

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406-1433

September 2003

PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY:

K. VINCENT OU, Ph.D., P.E.PROJECT MANAGERKING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA

.EONARD C-xTQHMSONPROGRAM MANAGER, RAC 3KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Rev. 19/29/2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

TABLES iiiFIGURES iiiACRONYMS -. iv

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 -11.1 PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF REPORT 1-11.2 SITE BACKGROUND . 1-1

2.0 INVESTIGATION AND MONITORING 2-12.1 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY 2-12.2 PRE-DESIGN INVESTIGATION 2-1

3.0 PILOT TEST ..3-13.1 DISCHARGE LIMITS 3-13.2 PILOT TEST OPERATIONS 3-1

3.2.1 Objectives : 3-13.2.2 Process Description 3-2

3.2.2.1 AOP 3-23.2.2.2 GAC Adsorption 3-33.2.2.3 Filtration „. 3-3

3.2.3 Test Equipment and Process Flow Arrangements 3-33.2.3.1 Mobile Photo-Cat Demonstration Unit 3-53.2.3.2 GAC Adsorption Vessels 3-63.2.3.3 Cartridge Filter 3-6

3.3 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS 3-63.4 RESULTS AND EVALUATION 3-6

3.4.1 AOP System '. 3-133.4.1.1 Test Run A 3-133.4.1.2 Test Run B '. ; ...3-15

3.4.2 GAC Adsorption Vessels 3-153.4.3 Cartridge Filter Unit 3-16

3.5 DISPOSAL OF TREATED WATER 3-16

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4-1

REFERENCES... R-1

APPENDICES

A PRE-DESIGN INVESTIGATION RESULTSB PADEP DISCHARGE LIMITSC TEST REPORT FOR PHOTO-CAT TREATMENT OF GROUNDWATER AT THE

CROSSLEY FARM SITE, BY PURIFICS ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.D PILOT TEST SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROGRAME PILOT TEST SUMMARY RESULTS

L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/4191/17407

Rev. 19/29/2003 I

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) I

ITABLES

NUMBER PAGE

3-1 SUMMARY RESULTS OF REPRESENTATIVE TEST RUNS 3-73-2 RATE CONSTANTS OF CONTAMINANTS DESTROYED BY AOP SYSTEM 3-144-1 COMPARISON OF CAPITAL AND 10-YEAR O&M COSTS FOR AOP AND GAC SYSTEMS 4-24-2 PROCESS STREAM INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS 4-3

FIGURES

NUMBER PAGE

3-1 BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM . 3-4

L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/4191/17407

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

111111•

111•I

11i•1 '

iii

AOP

BOD

CLP

COD

DNAPL

EPA

FS

GAG

gpm

Lpm

M9/L

mg/L

O&M

OU-1

PADEP

PCE

PDI

PFD

PLC

ppm

RA

RD

Rl

ROD

SCADA

Site

SU

SVOC

TAL

TCE

TCL

TDS

Ti02

ACRONYMS

Advanced Oxidation Process

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Contract Laboratory Program

Chemical Oxygen Demand

Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Feasibility Study

granulated activated carbon

gallons per minute

liters per minute

micrograms per liter

milligrams per liter

Operation and Maintenance

Operable Unit 1

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Tetrachloroethene

Pre-Design Investigation

Process Flow Diagram

Programmable Logic Control

Parts Per Million

Remedial Action

Remedial Design

Remedial Investigation

Record of Decision

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System

Crossley Farm Site

Standard Unit

Semivolatile Organic Compound

Target Analyte List

Trichloroethene

Target Compound List

Total Dissolved Solids

Titanium Dioxide

L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/4191/17407 iu

1

Rev. 19/29/2003

Rev. 19/29/2003

TOC Total Organic Carbon

TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

TSS Total Suspended Solids

TtNUS Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.

UV ultraviolet

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

L7DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/4191/17407

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

IIIiiiiiiiiiiiIiiii

Rev. 19/29/2003

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF REPORT

This report presents the description and results of the pilot test performed at the Crossley Farm Site (Site)

as a result of recommendations presented in the Treatment Technologies Comparison (Appendix H, Basis

of Design Report, Groundwater Remedial Action Design, TtNUS, August 2003). The Treatment

Technology Comparison report recommended the use of the Advanced Oxidation Process (AOP) in lieu

of the air stripping process for the treatment of high concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

in the groundwater at the Site. Treatment processes used in the pilot test included AOP, carbon

adsorption, and filtration. Upon acceptance of the recommendation, the pilot test was performed on-site

during April and May 2003 to determine the effectiveness of the proposed treatment system and to

acquire data required to design the full-scale treatment system. This report presents process description,

sampling methodologies, field and laboratory results, data evaluation, conclusions, and recommendations.

1.2 SITE BACKGROUND

The Site consists of approximately 209 acres of farm land located in a rural area approximately 7 miles

southwest of Allentown in the Huffs Church community of Hereford Township, Berks County,

Pennsylvania. The highland within the project area is known as Blackhead Hill, a heavily wooded,

resistant knob underlain by quartzite and granite gneiss.

Previous occupants of the Site placed drums of spent solvents in an old borrow pit at the top of Blackhead

Hill. The drums contained VOCs, including primarily trichloroethene (TCE) and tetrachloroethene (PCE).

Subsequent leaks or disposal practices resulted in migration of these compounds into groundwater.

Groundwater movement then resulted in a plume of contaminants, that extended beyond the farm land

property.

Two interim remedial actions (RAs) have been completed at the Site. In December 1986, the United

States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated a removal action in the valley downgradient of

Blackhead Hill to protect residents from exposure to contaminated groundwater that was used as a source

of potable water. The action consisted of installing and operating point of entry carbon treatment units for

residential drinking water wells that showed contamination related to the Site. In June 1997, EPA signed

a Record of Decision (ROD) to provide point of entry carbon treatment units for residents. This was the

first operable unit (OU-1) towards the remediation of the Site. The RA for OU-1 is ongoing and the

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) has assumed responsibility for

UDOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/4191/17407

Rev. 19/29/2003

I

maintaining the existing systems since February 2001. EPA continues to perform biannual sampling of •

drinking water wells near the Site to determine if additional homes require treatment systems.

In the summer of 1998, EPA's Removal Program excavated approximately 1,200 drums and 15,000 tons *

of contaminated soil from the Site. All materials were disposed at approved and permitted off-site

hazardous waste disposal facilities. Field activities continued through 1999 and the remedial investigation I(Rl) and feasibility study (FS) reports were completed in July 2001.

Currently the site is in the remedial design phase as described in Section 2.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

IL/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/4191/17407 1-2

I

IIIIIiiiiiiIiiiiiii

Rev. 19/29/2003

2.0 INVESTIGATION AND MONITORING

2.1 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY

Results of the Rl and FS for the Site that were concluded in July 2001 are presented in the following

documents:

• The Rl Report (TtNUS, July 2001 a) presented the rationale for the investigation, descriptions of

investigative procedures, the results of soil and groundwater analyses, and a risk assessment

based on those analyses. The risk assessment concluded that concentrations of some

groundwater contaminants, including TCE and PCE, presented unacceptable risks to human

health and the environment.

• The FS (TtNUS, July 2001 b) examined the cost and efficacy of several remedial strategies:

• A ROD (EPA, September 2001) established groundwater extraction and treatment as the

preferred remedial strategy and presented the regulatory criteria that the treatment system must

meet.

2.2 PRE-DESIGN INVESTIGATION

As part of a pre-design investigation (PDI) conducted for the Remedial Design (RD), 14 additional

monitoring wells and 6 extraction wells were installed in the immediate vicinity of the primary source at the

borrow pit in 2002. The sampling of these wells revealed significantly higher levels of contamination than

were previously detected. The analytical results obtained from each extraction well and the expected

influent concentrations to the treatment plant (based on the projected pumping rate of each well) for all

parameters are presented in Appendix A (Tables A-1 through A-4).

UDOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/4191/17407 2-1

IIIIIIiIiIiiiiiiiIi

Rev. 19/29/2003

3.0 PILOT TEST

The ROD selected pump and treat technology to remediate the site groundwater at the top of Blackhead

Hill. The selected remedial alternative consisted of pumping the groundwater from the selected extraction

wells and providing on-site treatment. This treatment consisted of air stripping, off-gas treatment, and

subsequent granulated activated carbon (GAC) adsorption treatment of water prior to discharge.

However, the high levels of VOC contaminants detected during the PDI posed challenges to the

conventional air stripping and carbon adsorption treatment technologies. Subsequently, alternative

treatment technologies were evaluated in terms of costs, implementability, and effectiveness. The AOP

was identified by EPA and PADEP as a favorable treatment alternative over the air stripping process.

For site groundwater containing high levels of organic contaminants, the AOP would destroy the organics

in the water stream, rather than transforming VOCs from liquid phase to vapor phase. In addition to the

AOP unit, the major units used in such a treatment train would consist of dense non-aqueous phase liquid

(DNAPL)-water separator, influent filtration system, pressurized coalescor, liquid-phase GAC adsorption

system, effluent filtration system, and pH adjustment system. Upon completion of treatment, the treated

water was proposed to be discharged to a groundwater aquifer upgradient of the plume via a series of

injection wells as indicated in the ROD, and other potential surface water discharge routes for backup.

3.1 DISCHARGE LIMITS

Regardless of the discharge methods, the level of treatment for the site groundwater is dictated by the

discharge limits set by PADEP, as well as in the ROD. The discharge limits and monitoring requirements

for the contaminants present in the treated water were provided by PADEP on April 3, 2003, as presented

in Appendix B.

3.2 PILOT TEST OPERATIONS

3.2.1 Objectives

The pilot test was performed at the site to determine the effectiveness of the proposed treatment system

in treating highly contaminated site groundwater and to acquire data needed to design the full-scale

treatment system. Specific objectives for the pilot test were:

• To determine the effectiveness of the proposed treatment system.

• To investigate any interference of organic or inorganic chemicals on the treatment process.

LTOOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/4191/17407 3-1

Rev. 19/29/2003

operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.

3.2.2 Process Description

UDOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/4191/17407 3-2

I

• To obtain operating parameters for design. •

• To gain information to estimate and optimize the full-scale treatment system in terms of capital and

I

IThe treatment processes utilized in the pilot test consisted of AOP, GAG adsorption, and effluent filtration

as described below. •

3.2.2.1 AOP «

In general, the AOP destroys dissolved organic contaminants in groundwater utilizing the strong oxidation

capability of the hydroxyl radical (OH*) that is activated by applying ultraviolet (UV) light to an oxidizing |

chemical. A UV lamp emits high energy UV radiation through quartz sleeve/cells/tubes in the

contaminated water. An oxidizing agent, typically hydrogen peroxide, with or without catalysts, is added •

to the contaminated water and is activated by the UV light to form oxidizing species (hydroxyl radicals).

The hydroxyl radicals then react with the dissolved contaminants, initiating a rapid cascade of oxidation •

reactions that ultimately oxidizes the contaminants. The success of the system is contingent upon the -

high reaction rate constants of hydroxyl radicals with most organic pollutants. The hydroxyl radical f

typically reacts a million to a billion times faster than chemical oxidants such as ozone and hydrogen £

peroxide. When the oxidation reactions are complete, the contaminants are converted into water, carbon

dioxide, and, if the contaminant is chlorinated, residual chloride in solution. I

In addition, the influent to the AOP typically flows through a pressurized coalescor to remove DNAPL and •

hence to improve the efficiency of the AOP. The pressurized coalescor is a solid state device which

coalesces and separates DNAPL. The pressurized coalescor consists of a cartridge that coalesces micro •

molecules of DNAPL until they become large enough to sink and collect in the collection tube. The ™

collection tube is equipped with a capacitance probe which measures the water and DNAPL interface

level. Once the DNAPL rises to a predefined level, the solenoid valve at the bottom of the collection tube

opens to permit the flow of DNAPL to a container for disposal. Pressurized coalescing is different than

other coalescing processes in that the fluid is completely sealed in a vessel. There is no release of VOCs £

or need for air treatment, no overflow hazard and related controls and containment issues and, therefore,

no health or explosion hazards. The pressurized coalescor process usually is automated and will •

separate and recover mechanically emulsified DNAPL from groundwater. The DNAPL that is collected in

a container will be disposed at an appropriate off-site facility. fl

m

I

I

IIIIIIi1iIiiiiiilii

Rev. 19/29/2003

3.2.2.2 GAC Adsorption

A GAC adsorption process is typically required to remove any residual VOCs and other organic

compounds in groundwater from the AOP system. The process will consist of passing the groundwater

through a bed of activated carbon to allow adsorption of the organic compounds onto the carbon.

Periodically, the GAC will become saturated and will be exchanged for fresh carbon. The exhausted GAC

will be returned to the vendor for regeneration or will be disposed at an appropriate off-site facility.

In general, highly substituted organic compounds with low water solubility, including TCE and PCE, are

best adsorbed by GAC. The usage rate of carbon depends on the actual carbon demand by the residual

VOCs and any naturally occurring humic compounds in groundwater after passing through the AOP.

3.2.2.3 Filtration

A filtration unit is usually required to remove carbon fines and other impurities present in the treated water

prior to its discharge. The effluent filter system typically consists of one or more cartridge filters with

screening larger than 10 microns. Pressure drop across the operating filter media will be monitored and

dirty filter cartridges will be replaced when the pressure differential exceeds a preset level. Loaded

cartridges will be placed in drums and disposed of at an approved off-site facility.

3.2.3 Test Equipment and Process Flow Arrangements

The pilot test was conducted on site in May 2003. The pilot test involved pumping the groundwater from

the extraction wells to holding tanks for the purposes of equalization and sampling, immediately before the

arrival of AOP pilot equipment. A mobile AOP demonstration unit (Photo-Cat™ system manufactured by

Purifies Environmental Technologies, Inc. [Purifies]) was mobilized at the Site to provide a pilot treatment

test for site groundwater. The groundwater from the holding tank was pumped through a 10 micron

influent filter preceding the AOP system. Since there was no visible evidence of the presence of DNAPL

in groundwater, the pressurized coalescor was not used before the AOP system. The treated water from

the AOP system was collected in an AOP effluent holding tank, which was then pumped through the

carbon adsorption system followed by a set of 10 micron filter units before being collected in the discharge

tank. The block flow diagram of the pilot test treatment process is presented in Figure 3-1. As shown in

Figure 3-1, the groundwater samples were collected from the following sample ports:

L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/4191/17407 3.3

Rev. 19/29/2003

FIGURE 3-1BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAMCROSSLEY FARM SITE

HEREFORD TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA

Extractionfrom 6 wells 4XH

Influent

SamplePort 2

Advanced Oxidation Process System(Supplied by Purifies Environmental Technologies, Inc.)

EXTRACTIONWELLS

ADVANCED OXIDATIONPROCESS SYSTEM

Discharge(Sample Port 6)

L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/4191 /17407 3-4

11

1I1t'

1111••

1

1. Sample Port! -Influent

2. Sample Port 2 - Post Influent Filter

3. Sample Port 3 - Post coalescor (not used)

4. Sample Port 4 - Post AOP

5. Sample Port 5 - Post Effluent Filter (Carbon Adsorption Effluent)

6. Sample Port 6 - Discharge Tank

Two types of groundwater were collected for treatment during the pilot test:

• Design mix from the six extraction wells.

• Groundwater of the highest strength (i.e., groundwater from EW-2, the extraction well

highest concentration of TCE).

Rev. 19/29/2003

with the

To minimize cross-contamination, these two types of groundwater were collected in separate tanks before

being pumped through the treatment system.

Details of each pilot test unit are provided below.

3.2.3.1 Mobile Photo-Cat™ Demonstration Unit

The mobile Photo-Cat unit is a trailer-mounted equipment consisting of 3 photocatalytic racks

Photo-Cat reactors) and each rack is capable of 2.4 kilowatts (kW) output. Depending

concentration of the contaminants and the required throughput, the racks can be linked together

(module

on the

in series

and/or parallel. For sustained single pass treatment, the titanium dioxide (TiO2) slurry is contained inside

a slurry loop and is continually recycled to the inlet stream. A key element of this technology is the

continuous Ti02 separation process which allows the catalyst to be separated out of the treated water and

reintroduced into the inlet stream.

|

I

I

i

Tests were performed using 2 and 3 racks (4.8 kW and 7.2 kW). Flow rates through the AOP system

ranged from approximately 1 gpm to 1.37 gpm (3.7 Lpm to 5.2 Lpm). All operations were performed

through the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system which was interfaced with the

Photo-Cat Programmable Logic Control (PLC). The mobile Photo-Cat system could be completely

automated, if needed.

The test program was conducted in two separate test runs. Test Run A used single pass tests of blended

groundwater (design mix from the six extraction wells) in which key operating parameters were optimized.


3.4 RESULTS AND EVALUATION

Complete results of the pilot test are tabulated in Appendix E. Table 3-1 presents summary of the results

from representative test runs that exhibited the desired rate constants and achieved discharge criteria set


I

I

Rev. 19/29/2003

Most tests were continuous flow, single-pass tests. Test Run B consisted of a batch test in which 200

gallons of groundwater (groundwater of the highest strength) was circulated and samples were drawn at

incremental times to determine treatment rates of targeted parameters. Details of the AOP system tests

as provided by Purifies are attached in Appendix C. I

3.2.3.2 GAG Adsorption Vessels •

The GAG adsorption system consisted of two 75-pound carbon vessels connected in series as shown in

IFigure 3-1. The carbon adsorption vessels were not only to ensure that contaminants not completely

treated by the AOP system during the optimization process were adsorbed by the activated carbon before

being collected in the discharge tank, but also to provide carbon usage information for design purposes. •

3.2.3.3 Cartridge Filter •

Initially, a 10-micron cartridge filter unit was used for the pilot test. To study the effects of filter size on

metal concentrations in the treated water, filter cartridges of 5- and 1-micron screen sizes were also •

utilized separately at a later stage.

3.3 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS ™

During the pilot test, water samples were collected and delivered to Blue Marsh Laboratories, Inc., •

Douglassville, Pennsylvania, for fast turnaround time analysis. Analytical parameters included Target

Compound List (TCL) VOCs, TCL low level VOCs, TCL semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and "tris" •

compounds [tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate and tris(2-ethylhexyl)phosphate], total petroleum hydrocarbons

(TPH), Target Analyte List (TAL) metals and cyanide, anions (sulfate, chloride, fluoride, and chloride), total •

dissolved solids (TDS), total suspended solids (TSS), total organic carbon (TOC), chemical oxygen demand ™

(COD), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and total hardness. Parameters analyzed for samples from a _

sample port were based on information needs at the particular sample port and treatment process. In |

addition, EPA requested to analyze the discharge samples for quality assurance purposes.

Details of the sampling and analysis program, including sample port, sample description, type of analysis

performed, and the required turnaround time, for the pilot test are presented in Appendix D. •

I

I

I

I

TABLE 3-1SUMMARY RESULTS OF REPRESENTATIVE TEST RUNS


ANALYTEPAOEP

DischargeLimits

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), ug/L

1,1,1,-TRICHLOROETHANE .1 ,1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE1 ,1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE1 , 1 -DICHLOROETHANE1 ,1-DlCHLOROETHENE,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE,2.4-TRICHLOROBENZENE.2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE,2-DIBROMOETHANE,2-DICHLOROBENZENE

1.2-DICHLOROETHANE1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE2-BUTANONE2-HEXANONE4-METHYL-2-PENTANONEACETONEBENZENEBROMOCHLOROMETHANEBROMODICHLOROMETHANEBROMOFORMBROMOMETHANECARBON DISULFIDECARBON TETRACHLORIDECHLOROBENZENECHLORODIBROMOMETHANECHLOROETHANECHLOROFORMCHLOROMETHANECIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENECIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENECYCLOHEXANEDIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE .DICHLOROMETHANE (Methylene Chloride)

5

0.6

NO

0.38

0.25

5.7

4.7

Sample ID and Concentrations

Test Run A

nfluent Holding Tank

A-1-01B

1210

A-1-11

7

15

12884

553

84

34

164

196

PostInfluentFilter

A-2-01

239

AOPEffluent

A-4-09

16.2

43.6

4.1

15.3

105.3

Post AOPEffluent

FilterA-5-09

3

EffluentHolding

TankA-6-01

Test Run B


TankB

719

B-1-01

1187

1808

AOP Effluent(beginning) (end)

B-4-01

2.621.553.2

127

5.8

100.316.3

500

B-4-07

22

15

24

Post AOPEffluentFilter

C-6-01

9.1

EffluentHolding

TankC-6-02

EffluentSample

Analyzed byEPA

C-6-03 (valid.)

L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC 3/4191/17407 Page 1 of 6Rev. 1

9/2S/2OO3

TABLE 3-1

SUMMARY RESULTS OF REPRESENTATIVE TEST RUNS

CROSSLEY FARM SITE


ANALYTE

DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANEETHYLBENZENEFLUOROTRICHLOROMETHANEISOPROPYLBENZENEMETHYL ACETATEMETHYL TERT-BUTYL ETHERMETHYLCYCLOHEXANESTYRENETETRACHLOROETHENETOLUENETRANS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENETRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENETRICHLOROETHENETRIGHLOROFLUOROMETHANETRICHLOROTRIFLUOROETHANEVINYL CHLORIDEXYLENES, TOTAL1,1'-Biphenyl2,2'-Oxybis(1 -chloropropane)2,4,5-Trichlorophenol2,4,6-Trichlorophenol2,4-Dichlorophenol2,4-Dimethylphenol2,4-Dinitrophenol2,4-Dinitrotoluene2,6-Dinitrotoluene2-Chloronaphthalene2-Chlorophenol2-Methylnaphthalene2-Methylphenol2-Nitroaniline2-Nitrophenol3,3-Dichlorobenzidine3-Nitroaniline4,6-Oinitro-2-methylphenol4-Bromophenyl-phenylether

PADEPDischarge

Limits

0.8

2.7

2

Sample ID and Concentrations

Test Run A


A-1-01B

1420

2428701750

A-1-11

3

3

1552

24

970001326

1-------------------

PostInfluentFilter

A-2-01

1115

744301605

AOPEffluent

A-4-09

561.7


A-5-09

8.2

EffluentHolding

TankA-6-01

Test Run B


TankB

1070

2710002843

206---------------.----

B-1-01

5078

657000


B-4-01

3.34420

B-4-07

97


C-541

EffluentHolding

TankC-6-02

--------------

' --

• ---

EffluentSample

Analyzed byEPA

C-6-03 (valid.)

UOOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC 3/4191(17407 Page 2 of 6Rev. 1

9/29/2003

TABLE 3-1

SUMMARY RESULTS OF REPRESENTATIVE TEST RUNSCROSSLEY FARM SITE


ANALYTEPADEP

DischargeLimits

Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs), ug/L

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol4-Chloroaniline4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether4-Methylphenol4-Nitroaniline4-NitrophenolAcenaphtheneAcenaphthyleneAcetophenoneAnthraceneAtrazineBehzaldehydeBenzo(a)anthraceneBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(g,h,i)peryleneBenzo(k)fluorantheneBis(2-chloroethoxy)methaneBis(2-chloroethyl)etherBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateButylbenzylphthalateCaprtlactumCattoazoteChrysene .Dibenz(a,h)anthraceneDibenzofuranDiethylphthalateDimethylphthalateDi-n-butylphthalateDi-n-octylphthalateFluorantheneFluorene

Sample ID and Concentrations (in ug/l, unless otherwise indicated)Test Run A


A-1-01B

0.5

A-1-11

-------- -----------------

-• -

-----

-

PostInfluentFilter

A-2-01

1.5

AOPEffluent

A-4-09

0.3


A-5-09

EffluentHolding

TankA-6-01

-

0.2

Test Run B


TankB

---

. -----------------------------

B-1-01


B-4-01

0.2

B-4-07

0.5


C-5-01

EffluentHolding

TankC-6-02

-----------------------

. ---------

EffluentSample

Analyzed byEPA

C-6-03 (valid.)

0.55 B

0.41 B

UDOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC 3/4191/17407 Page 3 of 6Rev. 1

9/29/2003



ANALYTEPADEP

DischargeLimits

Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs), cont

HexachlorobenzeneHexachlorobutadieneHexachlorocyclopentadieneHexachloroethanelndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyreneIsophoroneNaphthalene

NitrobenzeneN-nitroso-di-n-propylamineN-nitrosodiphenylaminePentachlorophenolPhenanthrenePhenolPyreneTris(2-chloroethyl)phosphateTris(2-ethylhexyl)phosphateInorganics, mg/L

Aluminum

AntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumCalciumChromium (total)

Sample ID and Concentrations (in ug/l, unless otherwise indicated)

Test Run A


A-1-01B

699

A-1-01B0.052

0.005

0.049

21.5

A-1-11

--------------- .-

A-1-11-

-------

PostInfluentFilter

A-2-01

879.5

A-2-01

0.011

0.055

20.1

AOPEffluent

A-4-09

95.3

A-4-09

0.071

180.005


A-5-09

A-5-090.059

0.0230.1

0.001

18.9

EffluentHolding

TankA-6-01

A-6-010.085

0.0630.236

21.70.011

Test Run B


TankB

TankB-

-------

B-1-01

1773.2

B-1-010.035

0.0780.0020.00619.1


B-4-01

37.6

B-4-01-

•------

B-4-07

B-4-07-

-------


C-5-01

M-5-010.087

0.0120.0420.136

19.60.02

EffluentHolding

TankC-6-02

-.---------------

M-6-010.099

0.0660.129

200.021

EffluentSample

Analyzed byEPA

C-6-03 (valid.)

0.50 J

C-6-03 (valid.)0.085

0.00880.06280.123

0.00005 J0.00004 J

200.00033 J

L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC 3/4191/17407 Page 4 of 6• Rev. 19/29/2003



ANALYTE

CobaltCopperCyanideIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseMercuryMolybdenumNickelPotassiumSeleniumSilverSodiumThalliumVanadiumZinc

PADEPDischarge

Limits

Sample ID and Concentrations (in ug/l, unless otherwise Indicated)

Test Run A

Influent Holding Tank

A-1-01B

0.063

2.570.0233.55

-0.136

0.0072.41

3.390.327

0.035

A-1-11-------

---------

PostInfluentFilter

A-2-01

0.063

0.0163.110.113

0.0080.0160.052

0.0062.420.251

0.015

AOPEffluent

A-4-090.0220.033

0.0133.320.101

0.0090.0190.0160.0010.001

260.259

0.02


A-5-090.0290.031

0.0134.06

0.0130.0220.007

31.10.027

0.057

EffluentHolding

TankA-6-010.0120.107

0.03

4.590.179

0.0750.249

20.40.1890.0080.059

Test Run B

Influent Holding Tank

TankB-----------------

B-1-010.010.013

-3.34

0.0124.260.077

0.0172.85

5.770.034

0.015


B-4-01-----------------

B-4-07--------

----

.----

Post AOPEffluentFilterC-5-01

0.092-

0.0470.0273.9

0.099

0.0140.0291.26

0.00234.50.1720.017.46

EffluentHolding

TankC-6-020.0120.087

-0.0540.0173J80.131

0.0180.0281.76

0.00226.80.1910.0110.044

EffluentSample

Analyzed byEPA

C-6-03 (valid.)0.0042

0.0007 JUUU

3.78 J0.0739

U

0.02124.32 J

UU

65.30.00006 J

0.01030.0184

L/DbCUMENTS/RAC/RAC 3/4191/17407 Page 5 of 6Rev. 1

9/29/2003

TABLE 3-1

SUMMARY RESULTS OF REPRESENTATIVE TEST RUNSCROSSLEY FARM SITE


w

ro

ANALYTEPADEP

DischargeLimits

Misc. Parameters, mg/L (unless otherwise indicated)

SulfateNitrate (NO3~)

Nitrite (NO2" )

FluorideChlorideBromide

'hosphateIDSTSSTOCCODBODHardnessTPHpH (S.U.)Conductivity (mS/cm)Turbidity (MTU)Dissolved OxygenTemperature (°C)

Salinity (%)

500Monitor

Sample ID and Concentrations (in ug/l, unless otherwise indicated)Test Run A


A-1-01B

14

1.4

-

5

-

-

106

1

3

70

44

6.590.117

28

4.3

18.3

-

A-1-11

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7.660.152

0

5.71

16.6

0

PostInfluentFilter

A-2-01

16

1.4

-

6

-

-

90

2

3

22

6

56

6.470.117

0

6.33

19

-

AOPEffluent

A-4-09

19.6

1.2

-

102.4

-

-

258

3

4

-

-

56

-

5.53

0.3850

19.99

21.9

0.01

Post AOPEffluent

Filter

A-5-09

9.2

-

0.1

99.2-

-

304

4

-

-

68

7.93

0.4030

19.99

18.4

0

EffluentHolding

Tank

A-6-01

7

-

0.1

81

-

-

236

5

58

7.750.354

0

10.2

18.5

0.01

Test Run B


TankB

-

-

-

----------------

-

B-1-01

-

-

-

------6----

7.03-

195.7520.7

0


B-4-01

-

-

-

------5

---

3.81-0

18.12

22.2

0

B-4-07

30

-

705--

13108-----

3.29-0

19.99

32.3

0


C-5-01

-. -

-

----------------

-

EffluentHolding

Tank

C-6-02

--

-

----------------

-

EffluentSample

Analyzed byEPA

C-6-03 (valid.)

8.60

<0.15

<1.0

0.17982.5

<0.50

<0.25216<4

<1.0J<10<4.0

72.1

Note: Discharge limits are the average monthly concentrations (in ug/L or mg/L) provided in PADEP letters dated April 3 and April 10, 2003.Blank fields indicate that results are non-detect or below detection level, unless otherwise noted."-" means that analysis was not requested.

UOOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC 3/4191/17407 Page 6 of 6Rev. 1

0/29/2003

IIIIIIII11IIIIIIIII

Rev. 19/29/2003

by PADEP. Detailed evaluation of the AOP, carbon adsorption, and filtration systems are presented

below.

3.4.1 AOP System

3.4.1.1 Test Run A!

During Test Run A, twelve tests were performed using a blend of water from six extraction wells.

Operating conditions were altered for each test in order to determine the impact of each condition on

effluent contaminant concentration. The conditions that were altered included: operating pH, hydrogen

peroxide dosage, flow rate, and number of racks used (power requirement). The influent and effluent

concentrations of VQCs, SVOCs, metals, and miscellaneous parameters from each test are presented in

Appendix E.

The influent to AOP contained low levels of alkalinity and chloride ion concentrations. However,

photocatalytic destruction of chlorinated VOCs produced chlorides as end products. Initial chloride

concentrations in the influent groundwater were measured to be less than 10 mg/L. After photocatalytic

treatment, the chloride concentrations increased to approximately 150 mg/L due to generation of residual

chloride. Both chloride and alkalinity (as bicarbonate) are scavenger compounds for the hydroxyl

radicals. Therefore, when chloride and/or alkalinity increases, the quantity of available hydroxyl radicals

decreases, and thus the treatment efficiency decreases.

One of the key operating parameters that affect the treatment efficiency is pH. Acidifying the influent

evolves the bicarbonate ion as carbon dioxide, thus reducing this scavenger. However, the rate of

hydroxyl radical scavenging from chloride ion increases as the water becomes more acidic. The results

showed that the optimal pH for treating the contaminants of interest was 4.6.

Tests were also performed at various levels of hydrogen peroxide. It appeared that all contaminants of

interest, except trichlorofluoromethane, exhibited significant destruction rates at 560 mg/L of hydrogen

peroxide. Increasing the dosage to 1,200 mg/L did not noticeably improve treatment efficiency.

It was difficult to compare the efficiencies of treatment and scale-up of the treatment process based on the

results from the varying testing conditions. The rate constants normalize all key operating parameters

and theoretically follow first order kinetics as discussed in the Purifies' Test Report (Appendix C). Under

normal conditions, the treatment efficiency increases as the rate of contaminant destruction increases.

MX)CUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/4191/17407 3.13

Rev. 19/29/2003

Once the rate constant is obtained, it may be used to calculate full-scale treatment requirements

according to the following equation (Appendix C):

k (Rate Constant) = Flow Rate / Power * ln(C/CB)

Where, C, is the influent concentration and Ce is the effluent concentration.

The rate constants for each chemical of interest that were calculated for different operating conditions are

presented in Table 3-2.

TABLE 3-2RATE CONSTANTS OF CONTAMINANTS DESTROYED BY AOP SYSTEM


Contaminants of Interest (1)

1 , 1 ,2-TrichloroethaneCarbon Tetrachloride

ChloroformMethylene ChlorideTetrachloroetheneTrichloroetheneTrichlorofluoromethane

Tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate

Rate Constants'21

(Lpm/kW)<»>

0.5<4>0.4(5>

0.3<4)

0.76.41>12.10.8(6>1.5(6)

(1) Contaminants of interest were based on treatment processes and detected during pilot test.

(2) Calculated using pilot test results by Purifies (Appendix C).

(3) Lpm/kW = Liters/minute/kW

(4) Rate constants were calculated from Test Run B results.

(5) Rate constant was calculated by TtNUS using an assumed influent concentration of 8 ng/L

(6) Discharge limit of 5 ppb assumed for rate calculation.

As shown in Table 3-2, TCE and PCE have the highest rate constants. All other contaminants are

considered refractive since they have much lower rate constants or lower destruction kinetics. In addition,

the rates of contaminant destruction are reduced further due to the chloride ion which is generated by the

oxidation of the chlorinated organics. The chloride ion competes for hydroxyl radicals, thus lowering rate

constants further.

L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/4191/17407 3-14

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

IIIIIII1IIIIIIIIIII

Rev. 19/29/2003

3.4.1.2 Test Run B

For Test Run B, a total of 200 gallons of groundwater from extraction well EW-2, which had the highest

levels of VOCs, was circulated through the AOP system. Influent and effluent samples were drawn at

incremental times. The test was operated such that the system pH was maintained between 4.6 and 4.7

Standard Units (S.U.) and at a constant power of 7.2 kW. Total power used to treat the groundwater was

proportional to the time the water circulated in the AOP system. The influent and effluent concentrations

of VOCs, SVOCs, metals, and miscellaneous parameters collected at various time intervals also are

presented in Appendix E. The results indicated that providing sufficient treatment time, or power, most

organic contaminants could be treated to non-detect or very low levels.

The rate constants for each chemical of interest in Test Run B were calculated for each test based on

samples collected at various time intervals. These rate constants were comparable to Test Run A rate

constants and incorporated in Table 3-2.

It should be noted that the chloride concentration in treated water after UV-photocatalytic treatment

process was approximately 1,000 ppm due to the high levels of contaminants in the influent.

3.4.2 GAG Adsorption Vessels

The groundwater collected in the AOP effluent holding tank was passed through the GAC adsorption

vessels to ensure that contaminants not treated by the AOP system were adsorbed by the activated

carbon before being collected in the discharge tank. In addition, the effectiveness of the carbon to adsorb

residual contaminants from the AOP system was tested during Test Run A. The concentration of VOCs,

SVOCs, metals, and miscellaneous parameters in the three samples collected after the GAC adsorption

system during Test Run A are presented in Appendix E.

Although there was no detection of TCE in the AOP effluent holding tank samples (A-4-02, A-4-09, and

A-4-12) after the water was fully treated by the AOP system, TCE was detected in all three samples

collected after the GAC adsorption system (A-5-02, A-5-09, and A-5-12) during Test Run A. To verify if

continuous desorption was occurring, additional tests were conducted by passing approximately

70 gallons of potable water through the carbon vessels at approximately 1 gpm and collecting the

samples for VOC analysis. The concentrations of VOCs in the two samples collected after the carbon

vessels during additional testing are presented in Appendix E. The results indicated positive detections of

TCE in the water, but the concentrations decreased from 552 ppb in the sample collected immediately

after the test started to 18.5 ppb after pumping 70 gallons of water. However, if the test ran a longer time

through the carbon vessels, it was anticipated that the samples would not indicate any presence of TCE.

LflDOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/4191/17407 3-15

3.4.3 Cartridge Filter Unit


I

I

Rev. 19/29/2003

This could be a slug of VOCs or DNAPL that exhausted the carbon immediately after the Test Run A

began. Normally, GAC is an excellent adsorber of TCE. According to the utilization rate model runs, it is

predicted that the first chemical which breaks through the carbon column would be methylene chloride. m

Methylene chloride is highly soluble and has a very low adsorption rate compared to TCE. Nonetheless, |

VOCs were not detected in the samples taken from the treated groundwater collected in the discharge

tank. I

•

The treated water in the discharge tank was filtered using a 10 micron filter cartridge during Test Runs A

and B. To study the effects of filter size on metal concentrations in the treated water, water from the f

discharge holding tank was pumped at approximately 1 gpm through the effluent filter canisters containing

5- and 1- micron filter cartridges. The concentrations of metals in the samples collected after the effluent I

filter are presented in Appendix E. No significant reduction of concentrations of metals was observed

using the 5- or 1- micron filter cartridge as compared to the groundwater in the discharge tank filtered •

through the 10-micron filter. ™

3.5 DISPOSAL OF TREATED WATER

Samples of the treated water in the discharge holding tank were analyzed by Blue Marsh Laboratory and •

EPA's Control Laboratory Program (CLP). Both the results indicated that the water met PADEP's

discharge limitations as provided in PADEP letter dated April 10, 2003. Upon providing 24-hour advance

notification, a portion of the treated water in the discharge tank was used in an aquifer recharge test in

June 2003. The water was pumped to an on-site pilot injection well in an aquifer recharge test. The _

remainder of the treated water was released as surface discharge upon completion of the aquifer •

recharge test.

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Rev. 19/29/2003

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This pilot test provided system operation and design information for treatment of the highly contaminated

groundwater using AOP, GAC adsorption, and filtration systems. The pilot test results indicated that the

AOP system is capable of treating all organic contaminants alone with considerable amount of power

consumption. It is also feasible to treat the groundwater to remove the majority of contaminants by AOP

system and to complete the treatment by GAC adsorption and filtration processes.

Two alternative designs of the full-scale AOP system were compared based on the capital and annual

O&M cost. The first design consists of treating all non-refractive contaminants, such as TCE and PCE,

and a considerable portion of the refractive contaminants using an AOP system. The total power

requirement in this case was calculated to be approximately 144 kW. Capital and 10-year O&M costs for

a 144 kW AOP system are estimated to be $700,000 and $1,695,000, respectively. The second design

consists of treating most TCE and PCE (near discharge limits) using an AOP system. The AOP system in

this case would only treat a portion (up to 60%) of the refractory contaminants. The process stream from

the AOP system containing the residual contaminants would be treated by the carbon adsorption system.

The total power requirement of the AOP system in second design was calculated to be approximately 96

kW. Capital and 10-year O&M costs for a 96 kW AOP system are estimated to be $490,000 and

$1,366,000, respectively. Comparison of the estimated capital and 10-year O&M costs for these AOP

systems are presented in Table 4-1.

Based on the results of this pilot test, it is recommended to utilize the 96 kW AOP system to treat the

highly contaminated groundwater at the Site in two stages. The optimum operating parameters for the

AOP system are pH of 4.6 S.U. and the hydrogen peroxide dosage of 560 ppm. The anticipated influent

and effluent concentrations for the full-scale treatment system are summarized in Table 4-2. Process

stream 1 presents the calculated concentrations of contaminants from all six extraction wells sampled

during the PDI. Concentrations measured in process stream 2 (after influent filter) were used as influent

concentrations to the AOP system during the pilot test for calculation purposes. Process stream 3

consists of predicted effluent concentrations from the full-scale AOP system or influent -concentrations to

the GAC adsorption system. Concentrations of contaminants in the process stream 3 were calculated

based on the rate constants calculated during the pilot test as presented in Table 3-1. Finally, process

stream 4 represents the anticipated concentrations in the GAC adsorption system effluent to the

discharge points. It is anticipated that the discharge concentrations will be below the PADEP discharge

limits.

L/DOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/4191/17407 4.-)

Rev. 19/29/2003

TABLE 4-1COMPARISON OF CAPITAL AND 10-YEAR O&M COSTS FOR AOP AND GAC SYSTEMS


Cost Items

Capital for AOP system (1>

O&M for AOP system (2)

Carbon Change-out forGAC system (3)

Total

Time Frame(Year)'4'

0

1st

ond

3rd

4th

5th

6th

7th

glh

gth

10th

1st -10th

96kWAOPw/GAC system

$490,000

$129,000

$129,000

$160,000

$129,000

$144,000

$129,000

$144,000

$129,000

$144,000

$129,000

$300,000

$2,156,000

144kWAOPw/GAC system

$700,000

$158,000

$158,000

$204,000

$158,000

$181,000

$158,000

$181,000

$158,000

$181,000

$158,000

$300,000

$2,695,000

Notes:

(1) Capital costs presented here were quoted from vendor and did not include contractor markups,

such as G&A, bond, and profit.

(2) O&M cost data are adapted from Purifies Environmental Technologies, Inc. Test Report, in

Appendix C of this report. O&M costs include electricity, lamp replacement, hydrogen peroxide,

sulfuric acid, sodium hydroxide. It is assumed that UV lamps will be replaced entirely in the 3rd

year of operation and will be replaced only 50% every other year thereafter.

(3) Carbon change-out costs for 96 kW or 144 kW AOP systems are assumed to be $30,000

annually per Basis of Design Report for Groundwater Remedial Action Design, Crossley Farm

Site (TtNUS, 2003b). Cost difference between these systems is minimal, due to the presence of

similar refractive compounds in the effluent from the AOP systems.


I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Rev. 19/29/2003

TABLE 4-2PROCESS STREAM INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS


Compound'1'

Vinyl ChlorideTrichlorofluoromethane1,1-DCEAcetoneMethylene ChlorideCarbon Disulfidetrans-1,2-DCE1,1-DCAcis-1,2-DCE2-butanone

Chloroform1,1,1-TCACarbon Tetrachloride1,2-DCABenzeneTrichloroethene4-methyl-2-pentanoneToluene1,1,2-TCATetrachloroetheneChlorobenzeneEthylbenzeneXylenesStyreneTris(2-chloroethyl)phosphateTDSTSS

Units

H9/LH9/LH9/LM9/LH9/LH9/LH9/Lng/LH9/LH9/LH9/L

H9/LM9/L^g/LM9/Lng/LH9/Lng/LM9/Lng/Lng/Lng/Lng/LH9/Lng/Lmg/Lmg/L

DischargeLimit (2)

2NAND

NA

4.7

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

5.7

5

0.250.38NA

2.7

NA

NA

0.6

0.8

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

500

Monitor

Process Streams1(3)

21466

94213171

222<113225

24rj<5>

223110.2

151,000767435

288246411

9021144

2<4>

<11605<0.1<1239<1<1<1<1<1

< 100(6)

<1< 25(6)

<0.38<1

74430<1<1

< 60(6)

1115<1<1<1<1

879.5902

3

<1941<0.1<1150<1<1<1<1<125<17

<0.38<123<1<124

15.5<1<1<1<1323258<1

4

<1<1

<0.1<1<1<1<1<1<1<1< 1<1

<0.20<0.38

<1<1<1<1

<0.6<0.8<1<1<1<1< 1304< 1

(1) The compounds are detected in at least one well.(2) PADEP discharge limits (average monthly limitations).(3) Representative concentration from all six wells during PDI.(4) Groundwater sampled after influent filter during pilot test (A-2-01, Appendix E).(5) Maximum detected.(6) Estimated for calculation purposes.NA - Not Available (discharge limit not set by PADEP).ND - Non Detect.Process Stream Details1 - Effluent from equalization tank (representative concentration from all six wells during PDI).2 - Effluent from influent filter during pilot test (influent to the AOP system, A-2-01, Appendix E).3 - Effluent from AOP system or influent to GAC adsorption system (based on pilot test or calculated).4 - Effluent from GAC adsorption system (detection limits or measured).

iyDOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/4191/17407 4-3

Rev. 19/29/2003I

I REFERENCES

I EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2001. Record of Decision, Crossley Farm Superfund Site,

Hereford and Washington Townships, Berks County, Pennsylvania. September.

TtNUS (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.), 2001a. Remedial Investigation Report for Crossley Farm Site, Hereford

• Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania. July.

• TtNUS, 2001 b. Feasibility Study Report for Crossley Farm Site, Hereford Township, Berks County,

™ Pennsylvania. July.

I TtNUS, 2003a. Test Report: Photo-Cat Treatment of Groundwater at the Crossley Farm Site, PA.

Hereford Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania. June.

TtNUS, 2003b. Basis of Design Report for Groundwater Remedial Action Design, Crossley Farm Site;

• Hereford Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania. August.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Ig iyDOCUMENTS/RAC/RAC3/4191/17407 FM

Iiiiiiiii

APPENDIXA

PRE-DESIGN INVESTIGATION RESULTS

I

I

i

iiiiii

Rev. 19/29/2003

Rev. 19/29/2003

TABLE A-1EXTRACTION WELL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS™


COMPOUND

Pumping Rate (gpm):Vinyl Chloride . _Trichlorofluoromethane1,1 -DCEAcetoneMethylene ChlorideCarbon Disulfidetrans-1,2-DCE1,1-DCAcis -DCE2-butanoneChloroform1,1,1-TCA.Carbon Tetrachloride1,2-DCABenzeneTrichloroethene4-methyl-2-pentanoneToluene1,1,2-TCATetrachloroetheneChlorobenzeneEthylbenzeneXylenesSerene . ,Gasoline Range OrganicsDiesel Range Organics

EXTRACTION WELLT128I

(EW-1)

9

1200

5J47

132J48

164J58

120,0002913027

40008J151104J

50000500

Tt28D(EW-2)

320 J

6100 J110J320 J

40000 J23 J

240 J

1500J280 J240 J14 J110J140 J3J

700,000870 J

J50J360 J3600 J25 J27 J190J4J

610001900

Tt29l(EW-3)

10

420 J

1500J1500B

37,000

1900 J

4100200

T129D(EW-4)

3

7200 J

36000 B

620,000

8600 J

46000850

TtSOl(EW-5)

10

730 B1700 B

22,000

1400 J

170086

TtSOD(EW-6)

3

260 J

15 B9B

3J

23 J40 J7J

7J

34,000

3J

13003J

690075

INFLUENTCONC.<2>

21466

94213171

2220.51322523223110.2

151,000767435

288246411

22374417

(1) Sample results represent the maximum UNFILTERED concentration from two sample events (after 2.5 and 4.0 hours of pumping).(2) Influent concentration expressed as concentration per unit volume (liter) of water in the treatment plant equalization tank resulting from the

given projected pumping rates for each well. The influent concentration was calculated by multiplying the chemical concentration from eachwell by the well's proportional contribution to the influent flow (as determined by the ratio of the well's projected pumping rate to the totalinfluent flow rate of 38 gpm), and summing the proportional chemical contribution from each well.

(3) Concentrations expressed in micrograms per liter (ng/L). J - Analyte present. Reported value may not be accurate or precise. B- Not detectedsubstantially above the level reported in laboratory of field blank.

Rev. 19/29/2003

TABLE A-2EXTRACTION WELL INORGANIC CONCENTRATIONS'13)


COMPOUND

Pumping Rate (gpm):AluminumAntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseMercuryNickelPotassiumSeleniumSilverSodiumThalliumVanadiumZincCyanide

EXTRACTION WELL

T128I

(EW-1)

929.3

78.8

0.5852602.93.2

227

1580277

2.11100

4670

14

Tt28D(EW-2)

3161

119

446002.40.72

1010

486030.3

19602.7

5780

64.2

Tt29l(EW-3)

10

62.3

114001.0

1.0

358069.3

2.31480

5920

19.2

Tt29D(EW-4)

324.9

69.4

326001.3

4630

3960135

2160

4920

20.3

TtSOl

(EW-5)

10

34.8

84300.63

266014.9

13102.5

5790

11.2

TOOD

(EW-6)

3

13.4

11.2

198003.20.85

4340

342062.6

1510 -3.40.805720

0.8411.1

INFLUENT

CONC. (2>

23----60--

0.1414125

1.70.90.3842--

2983106--1.1

14391.1

0.065484--

0.0718.9--

(1) Sample results represent the maximum UNFILTERED concentration from two sample events (after 2.5 and 4.0 hours of pumping).(2) Influent concentration expressed as concentration per unit volume (liter) of water in the treatment plant equalization tank resulting from the

given projected pumping rates for each well. The influent concentration was calculated by multiplying the chemical concentration from eachwell by the well's proportional contribution to the influent flow (as determined by the ratio of the well's projected pumping rate to the totalinfluent flow rate of 38 gpm), and summing the proportional chemical contribution from each well.

(3) Concentrations expressed in micrograms per liter (jxg/L)

Rev. 19/29/2003

TABLE A-3EXTRACTION WELL SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS'1'


COMPOUND

Pumping Rate (gpm):AcetophenoneBenzole AcidButylbenzylphthalateCaprolactamOiethylphthalateHexachlorobutadieneHexachlorocyclopentadieneIsophorpneNaphthalenePentachlorpphenol ^_Tris(2-chloroethyl)PhosphateTris(2-ethylhexyl)Phosphate

EXTRACTION WELLTt28l

(EW-1)9

0.8 J27.90.1J0.3 J

4J

1010 J

Tt28D(EW-2)

3

93.9 J0.2 J

0.3 J

4.9 J7.1

2250 J0.2 J

T129I(EW-3)

10

0.9 J

0.2 J

0.2 J

702

Tt29D(EW-4)

3

49.2 J

167.2

3J1 J5.7

0.3 J1710 J0.2 J

TtSOl(EW-5)

10

3J

519

TtSOD(EW-6)

30.2 J

82.2

361

INFLUENTCONC.(2)

0.02110.227

0.020.10.20.52

0.029020.03

(1) Sample results represent the maximum concentration from two sample events (after 2.5 and 4.0 hoirs of pumping).(2) Influent concentration expressed as concentration per unit volume (liter) of water in the treatment plant equalization tank resulting from the given

projected pumping rates for each well. The influent concentration was calculated by multiplying the chemical concentration from each well by thewell's proportional contribution to the Influent flow (as determined by the ration of the well's projected pumping rate to the total influent flow rate of 38gpm), and summing the proportional chemical contribution from each well.

Rev. 19/29/2003

TABLE A-4EXTRACTION WELL ANION & MISCELLANEOUS PARAMETER CONCENTRATIONS'1'


COMPOUND

Pumping Rate (gpm):Alkalinity

AmmoniaBOD (5-day)CODHardnessBromideChlorideFluorideNitrateNitriteOrthophosphateSulfateTDSTSSTOC

EXTRACTION WELLTt28l

(EW-1)9

16.3NDNA

29.520.0ND1.85ND

0.202NDND12.657NDND

Tt28D(EW-2)

3

NA<3'NDNA184128NA15.6ND0.68ND

. ND20.2343ND7.7

TE29I(EW-3)

1020.0

NDND16.344.8ND6.12ND

4.36NDND13.31004

ND

Tt29D(EW-4)

377.5

NDND15092.9ND8.310.243NDNDND19.6158133.7

TtSOl(EW-5)

1017.5

NDNDND31.5ND3.66ND1.86NDND14.6965

ND

TtSOD(EW-6)

354.4

NDND16.663.4ND4.08ND1.96NDND15.91185

ND

INFLUENTCONC.(2>

30.3

----3947--5.20.021.9----

14.71144

0.9

(1} Sample results represent the maximum concentration from two sample events (after 2.5 and 4.0 hours of pumping).(2) Influent concentration expressed as concentration per unit volume (liter) of water in the treatment plant equalization tank resulting from the given projected pumping

rates for each well. The influent concentration was calculated by multiplying the chemical concentration from each well by the well's proportional contribution to theinfluent flow (as determined by the ratio of the well's projected pumping rate to the total influent flow rate of 38 gpm), and summing the proportional chemicalcontribution from each well.

(3) Assumes an alkalinity of 77.5 for EW-2 (assumes alkalinity is similar to EW-4).

IiIIIIII

APPENDIX B

I PADEP DISCHARGE LIMITS

iIiiiiiii

Rev. 19/29/2003

Rev. 19/29/2003

TABLE B-1PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DISCHARGE LIMITS'11


DISCHARGEPARAMETER12'

Flow

Total Dissolved Solids

1 , 1 -Dichloroethene1 ,2-Dichloroethane

1,1,1 -Trichloroethane

1,1 ,2:Trichloroethane

Carbon Tetrachloride

Chloroform

Methylene Chloride

Tetrachloroethene

Trichloroethene

Vinyl Chloride

PH

UNITS

MGD<">

mg/L(5)

ng/L'7>ng/L

ng/L

Hg/L

ng/LM9/L

ng/Lng/Lng/Lng/Lsu(9>

DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS

AVERAGEMONTHLY

500

ND'8'

0.38

5

0.6

0.25

5.7

4.7

0.8

2.7

1

2

MAXIMUM DAILY

1,000

ND

0.78

10

1.2

0.5

11.4

9.4

1.65.4

3

4

INSTANTANEOUSMAXIMUM

1,250

ND

0.95

12.5

1.5

0.6

14.3

11.75

2

6.8

4

5

MONITORING REQUIREMENTS'3'

MEASUREMENTFREQUENCY

2/month

2/month

2/month

2/month

2/month

2/month

2/month

2/month

2/month

2/month

2/month

2/month

2/month

SAMPLE TYPE

Pump Rate

24 HC(6)

24 HC

24 HC

24 HC

24 HC

24 HC

24 HC

24 HC

24 HC

24 HC

24 HC

Continuous

(1) Based on letters from PADEP to TtNUS dated April 3 and 10,2003,(2) In addition to the listed parameters, the discharge of floating solids, visible foam, or other substances that produce color, tastes, odors, and turbidity, or

settle to form deposits shall be controlled.(3) Samples shall be taken at the discharge from the treatment system (Outfall 001).(4) million gallons per day.(5) milligrams per liter.(6) 24-hour composite.(7) micrograms per liter.(8) Lower than the method detection limit (MDL) of the most sensitive EPA approved (40 CFR 136) test method or other PADEP approved method.(9) Standard Units.

IIIII

Rev. 19/29/2003

I

I

• APPENDIX C

I TEST REPORT FOR PHOTO-CAT TREATMENT OF GROUNDWATERAT THE CROSSLEY FARM SITE

BY PURIFICS ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

•I' •

I

II

IiIti

III

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Rev. 19/29/2003

TEST REPORT

,m PHOTO-CAT TREATMENT OF GROUNDWATERI AT THE CROSSLEY FARMS SITE, PA

Revision 1

PREPARED FOR

Tetra Tech Nus, Inc.600 Clark Avenue, Suite 3

.£ King of Prussia, PA, 19406-1433

Attn: Vincent Ou

June 17,2003

If|- Submitted by:

^ Tony Powell, P.Eng.Purifies® Environmental Technologies Inc.

1 1941 Mallard RoadLondon, Ontario, N6H 5M1

Phone:(519)473-5788

IFax: (519) 473-0934

Email: [email protected]\A/^K CI+A* IAIA/IA/ ru irrfir*c* r+nmWeb Site: www.purifics.com

Rev. 19/29/2003

I2P1202 : ' -.;•:;/.•:.'. : '•'•-. • . ' , ' • " : ' • : ^' '.. " V^/.':.1;'V.": :: ;: :Page;ii

1 PHOTO-CAT TEST PROGRAM DESCRIPTION / THEORY 31.1 Photo-Cat Single-Pass Testing of Blended Groundwater 31.2 Batch Testing of EW2 Groundwater. 4

2.1 Photo-Cat Single-Pass Test Results 52.2 Batch Testing of EW2 Groundwater ..6

3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7AppENDixl: SINGLE-PASS TESTING ON BLENDED GROUNDWATER .. 10APPENDIX!: BATCH TESTONEWI GROUNDWATER 11APPENDIX 3: FULL-SCALE PHOTO-CAT OPTION 2 12

I

I

Table of Contents

I

I

I

I

II

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

1

I

IIIIIIIIIIIiiitiiii

Rev. 19/29/2003

| 2E1202 :, ? ;:.':'!'!. • ., : :.;. , , • / . : . ; - - . ,:.: ;y v-.;..^ •••V.Q': ':; :...:.. Page,3~T

I PHOTO-CAT TEST PROGRAM DESCRIPTION / THEORY

The mobile Photo-Cat demonstration system was mobilized at the Crossley Farms Site, PA inMay of 2003. The Photo-Cat system contained 3 photocatalytic racks (ie. module Photo-Catreactors), each rack consisting of 2.4 kilowatts (kW). Tests were performed both with 2 and 3racks (4.8 - 7.2 kW). The majority of the tests performed were continuous flow, single-passtests. Flow rates through the Photo-Cat ranged from 3.7 Lpm to 52 Lpm. The final test was abatch test in which 200 gallons of EW2 groundwater was circulated and samples were drawnat incremental times to determine treatment rates of targeted parameters. All operations wereperformed through the system control and data acquisition (SCAD A) system which isinterfaced with the Photo-Cat PLC. The mobile Photo-Cat system was completely automated

The purpose of the on-site test was to optimize Photo-Cat operating parameters (required tominimize treatment costs) and quantify treatment rates of targeted volatile organiccompounds (VOCs) such that full-scale operating and maintenance costs could be calculated

The test program was broken into 2 phases. The first phase was single pass tests of blendedground water in which key operating parameters were optimized The second phase was abatch test which utilized the optimal operating conditions, and men applied them to treatmentof EW2 groundwater.

1 .1 Photo-Cat Single-Pass Testing of Blended Groundwater

The raw groundwater at Crossley Farms contained low levels of alkalinity and chloride ionconcentrations. These parameters are important because both alkalinity (which is a measureof the bicarbonate ion concentration) and chloride ion are a scavenger for the hydroxylradical. The hydroxyl radical is die key species formed on the surface of the TiO2

photocatalyst, which readily oxidize and destroy the organic contaminants. The bicarbonateion and alkalinity compete with the organic contaminants for the hydroxyl radicals. However,photocatalytic destruction of chlorinated VOCs oxidizes these species into water, carbondioxide, and chloride ion. Thus producing significant chloride concentrations. Based onprevious experience, operating pH has die most significant impact on reducing the impact ofhydroxyl radical scavenging by chloride ion. Tests were performed at various operatingconditions to optimize the process.

The results of each test are compared to others to determine the impacts of various operatingparameters. Since it is difficult to compare the results of varying tests together when theparameters are different, a first order rate constant is calculated for each parameter. The rateconstant normalizes all key operating parameters. As with normal rate constants, as the rateconstant increases the treatment efficiency increases. The rates of contaminant destructionMow first order kinetics as shown in Equation 1 .

|;2P1 202 ,••-., ; . . ; • • - ; : •:••; .,1 • / ; • ; ; ;:,;: > •.. .• • • . . • : : : ' : ' ! . . :1 • . : •• : -? :-: '•xL'x :;- :. :;;•;, /Page*- • :'v\;:|

k=l/t*ln(Co/Q I/

Where: Co = Initial concentrationC = Final concentrationt = Timek = First order rate constant

The time (t) in Equation 1 is directly proportional to the Photo-Cat® power (kW) divided bythe flow rate (L/min). Substituting the kW/Lpm ratio for 't' in Equation 1 above gives unitsof 'L/min / kW' for the rate constant 'k' as shown in Equation 2.

k = Flow Rate /Power* In (Co/Q 21

Once the rate constant has been obtained, it can be used to calculate full-scale treatmentrequirements by substituting the rate constant, the design flow rate, and the design influentand effluent concentrations into equation 2 and then solve for the power (kW).

It is important to note that the calculated rate constants for non-detect data are alwaysreported as '> X.X' since the exact effluent concentration is not known.

1 .2 Batch Testing of EW2 Groundwater

It was determined in the single-pass treatment of the blended groundwater that the 3-rackmobile system did not have a sufficient number of photocatalytic racks to obtain treatment ofall targeted parameters below their relative treatment specifications, hi such cases, themethod of obtaining additional treatment is to perform a batch test in which the groundwateris continuously circulated through the Photo-Cat system. Samples are taken at incrementaltimes. First order rate constants are calculated and used for full-scale system sizing.

Rev. 19/29/2003 •

I

1"

.

19

IIp

1••'

1

1

1

1

I

1

1

1

1

III1IIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Rev.19/29/2003

2P1202 Page;5

2 RESULTS

2.1 Photo-Cat Single-Pass Test Results

Twelve tests were performed on a blend of water from various groundwater wells. Variousoperating conditions were altered in order to determine the impact of each condition. Suchconditions include operating pH, peroxide dosage, flow rate, and number of racks used. TheVOC and SVOCs data of concern, operating conditions, and rate constants from the 12 testsare shown in Appendix 1.

The influent chloride concentrations were measured to be less than 10 ppm on the influentgroundwater, however, after photocatalytic treatment, the chloride concentrations weremeasured to be approximately 150 ppm.

The key operating parameter for optimizing the rates of VOC removal was pH because itaffects how alkalinity and chloride ion affect photocatalytic efficiency. Acidifying thegroundwater evolves the bicarbonate ion off as COi, thus eliminating this hydroxyl radicalscavenger. However, the rate of hydroxyl radical scavenging from chloride ion increases asthe water becomes more acidic. Figure 1 illustrates the effect of pH on the rate constant ofTCE obtained in the first 5 tests, hi these tests, all operating conditions other than pH wereheld constant Sulfuric acid was added to the groundwater to obtain the pH set-points.

Figure 1: Effect of pH on Photo-Cat Rate Constant for Tris(2-Chloroethyl')Phosphate

e- 1.8

1.6

1.45 '"

1.2

^a'i «.•

-tat TJssI

4 5 6

Operating pH

The above curve was similar for carbon tetrachloride (ie. maximum destruction rate at pH 4.6operation), but the deleterious effect of lower pH operation on contaminant destruction rates

Rev.19/29/2003

Page6j:

was not as pronounced for the other contaminants of concern (ie. rates at pH 2.8 was similarto rates obtained for 4.6 for the other contaminants). Thus, the optimal pH for the entirecontaminants of concern was 4.6. Typically, contaminant rate constants drop at pH levelsbelow 4 because the rate of hydroxyl radical scavenging from the chloride ion increases withdecreasing pH, and the rate constants drop at operation above a pH of 5 because thealkalinity increases due to a lack of sulphuric acid, thus increasing the rate of hydroxylradical scavenging.

Tests were performed at 25 ppm, 560 ppm, 800 ppm and 1200 ppm of hydrogen peroxide.The data shows that the only parameter of concern whose destruction rates increased at 25ppm peroxide was trichlorofluoromethane. This compound, which is a freon basedcompound, tend to exhibit greater destruction rates in starved oxygen/peroxide conditions asother oxidative and reductive pathways are prominent and are more effective at treating suchrefractive compounds. All other compounds exhibited significantly greater destruction ratesat 560 ppm peroxide, however, increasing the dosage to 800 ppm and 1200 ppm had little tono impact on efficiency.

2.2 Batch Testing of EW2 Groundwater

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

IA 200 gallon batch test on freshly pumped water from EW2 was performed and the data for •the contaminants of concern are listed in Appendix 2. The test was operated such that the •system pH was maintained nominally between 4.6-4.7. Rate constants for the contaminantsof concern were calculated (where possible) and are displayed in Appendix 2.

As shown in the Appendix, the rate constants are very consistent for each contaminant, thus §fproviding accurate destruction rates for scale-up design.

The chloride concentrations on the treated water were measured to be approximately 1000 •ppm. W

I

1

I

I

1

I

I

I

IIIIIII1I

Rev.19/29/2003

1

I

I

I

iiiii

H2P1202 :Page7

3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

There are 6 main contaminants of concern Which require treatment to obtain the dischargespecification which are TCE, PCE, methylene chloride, 1,1,2-TCA, carbon tetrachloride, andchloroform. There are 2 other contaminants that may or may not be regulated(trichlorofluoromethane and tris(2-chloroethyl)pnosphate). The following table is a list of thecontaminants of concern, their relative discharge specifications, their demonstrated rateconstants, and the M-scale power requirement for each contaminant to meet its treatmentspecification at a design flow rate of 38 gpm.

Table 1: Full-Scale Power Requirements for Contaminants of Concern

Parameter

rrichloroetheneretrachloroetheneCarbon TetrachlorideChloroform1,1,2-Trichloroethanerris(2-chloroethyl)phosphateMethylene Chloriderrichlorofluoromethane

InfluentConc'n(ppb)744301115<25<100<608792391605

DischargeSpec,(ppb)5.41.6

0.255.71.2*54.7*5

DemonstratedRate - 'k1

(Lpm/kW)>12.16.41N/A0.30.51.50.70.8

kWh/m3Req'd to

Meet Spec.13.117

"21.63050

57.493.5120

Power for38 gpm(kW)1131441862594304958071035

N/A - Rate constant cannot be calculated.(*) There is no current discharge specification, therefore estimated

(**) Power requirement estimated because no rate constant could be calculated.

The contaminants are listed in increasing full-scale power requirements. For example, thefull-scale power requirement to treat chloroform below its discharge specification of 5.7 ppbat a flow rate of 38 gpm is 259 kW. If a 259 kW Photo-Cat system was installed, chloroform,carbon tetrachloride, PCE and TCE would all be treated below their relative dischargespecificatioa All contaminants listed below chloroform would be partially treated (and theirrelative discharge concentration could be calculated).

Of all of the contaminants of concern, only TCE and PCE are not considered 'refractive'.Refractive is a term used to depict contaminants which are resistant to the hydroxyl radicalattack, consequently refractive contaminants have lower destruction kinetics. This is evidentby comparing the relative rate constants of TCE and PCE versus the other 6 refractivecontaminants. In this application, the rates of contaminant destruction are reduced further dueto the chloride ion which is generated by the oxidation of the chlorinated organics. Thechloride ion competes for hydroxyl radicals, thus lowering kinetics further.

There are several options to proceed with for a full-scale recommendation. However, basedon experience, it is proposed that the Photo-Cat system be used to destroy the TCE and PCEbelow their treatment specification (ie. install a 144 kW Photo-Cat system to fully treat for allnon-refractive contaminants). With this approach, a portion of the refractive compounds willalso have been destroyed, thus requiring only minimal requirements for polishing with

Rev. 19/29/2003

2P1202 Page 8;

activated carbon. In order to evaluate the impact of the carbon polishing, Table 2 lists theanticipated effluent concentrations after treatment with a Photo-Cat system at 144 kW.

Table 2: Anticipated Discharge Concentrations - 144kW Photo-Cat (8), 38 gpm

ParameterTrichloroetheneTetracloroetheneCarbon TetrachlorideChloroform1 , 1 ,2-TrichloroethaneTris(2-chloroethyl)phosphateMethylene ChlorideTrichlorofluoromethane

[Influent]744301115<25

<100<608792391605

[Effluent]ND

<1.64-7

14-2515-24196119720

All concentrations are in ppb.

The total removal percentage of all of the above contaminants is 98.6%. Based on this levelof treatment for a flow rate of 38 gpm, Table 3 lists the operating and maintenance costs ofthe Photo-Cat system.

Table 3:144kW Photo-Cat O&M Costs for 38 gpm Operation

Photo-Cat O&M Costs - US Dollars

O&M Item:

^hob-Cat Electrical

Hydrogen Peroxide

Sulphuric Acid

Sodium Hydroxide

_smp Replacement

Totals:

UnilPrice

$0.067 kWh

S0.63/ kg 35%

$0.25/ kg 93%

$0.321 kg 50%

,2 year life

Annual O&M

Yearl

$87,564

$67.584

$802

$1,890

$0

$157,840

Year 2

$87,564

$67.584

$802

$1,890

$0

$157,840

Year3

$87,564

$67,584

$802

$1,890

$45,832

$203,672

Year 4

$87,564

$67,584

$802

$1,890

$0

$157,840

Years

$87,564

$67,584

$802

$1,890

$22,916

$180,756

Total

$437.818

$337.922

$4.008

$9.449

$68,748

$857,946

A second Photo-Cat option is listed in Appendix 3. This option is for a nominal 96 kWPhoto-Cat system (2 pallets) in which the majority of the TCE and PCE are destroyed.

The Photo-Cat system operates autonomously, and requires no operator input other than toturn it off and on (which is performed by simply clicking a button on the SCADA system).The SCADA system is resident in a touchscreen, panel-mounted PC. Remote monitoring canbe accomplished through modem or Ethernet It is recommended that the PLC and SCADAsystem of the Photo-Cat system be used to control the entire treatment plant This will savemoney and streamline the installation.

The equipment will consist of 3 pallets. A typical pallet is shown in Figure 2.

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

iiiii

IIIIIIIIIII1IIIIIII

Rev. 19/29/2003

F2P1202 Page9

Figure 2: Typical Photo-Cat Pallet

Rev. 19/29/2003

2P1202 Page 10

APPENDIX 1: SINGLE-PASS TESTING ON BLENDED GROUNDWATER

Test*

12345

6789101112

Flow(L/mirrt

5.23.73.73.73.7

3.72.62.63.73.73.73.7

Power(kW)

4.84.84.87.27.2

7.27.27.24.84.84.87.2

kWh/m3

15.4

21.6

21.6

32.4

32.4

32.4

46.2

46.2

21.6

21.6

21.6

32.4

PH

2.82.82.82.87

2.82.82.85.34.67

4.4

[H2O2](mali.1

56056025560560

560800

1200

560560560560

Trlchloroethylene

Inf(ua/U744307443074430744307443074430744307443074430744307443074430

Effluent(uo/U

< 1< 1

971.9< 1< 1

< 1< 1< 1< 1< 1

57< 1

Rate(Lom/kW)> 12.15> 8.65

3.34> 5.76> 5.76> 5.76> 4.05> 4.05> 8.65> 8.65

5.53> 5.76

Tetrachloroethylene

Inf(uo/U111511151115111511151115111511151115111511151115

Effluent(ua/U

3< 0.8

33< 0.8< 0.8< 0.8< 0.8< 0.8< 0.8< 0.8

10< 0.8

Rate(Lom/kW)

6.41>5.58

2.71> 3.72>3.72> 3.72>2.61>2.61> 5.58>5.58

3.63> 3.72

Math

Inf(uo/U239239239239239

239239239239239239239

ylene Chloride

Effl(ua/U11578.5

54467.8

58.9

76.5

58.6

51.9

1059615274.3

Rate(Lom/kW

0.79

0.86

-0.630.65

0.72

0.59

0.51

0.55

0.63

0.70

0.35

0.60

Trichlorofluoromethane

Inf(uo/U1605

1605

1605

1605

1605

1605

1605

1605

1605

1605

1605

1605

Effl(uo/U937533440455505

771508570562496584522

RateLom/kW

0.58

0.85

1.00

0.65

0.59

0.38

0.42

0.37

0.81

0.91

0.78

0.58

Test*

1

23456789101112

Flow

(L/mirt5.23.73.73.73.73.72.62.63.73.73.73.7

Power

(kW>4.84.84.87.27.27.27.27.24.84.84.87.2

kWh/m3

15.421.621.632.432.432.446.246.221.621.621.632.4

PH

2.82.82.82.87

2.82.82.85.34.67

4.4

[H202](ma/U

56056025560560560800

1200560560560560

1,1,2-TCAInf

(uq/U<60<60<60<60<60<60<60<60<60<60<60<60

Effl

ua/U24

14.46869.99.413.88.69.916.21523

11.4

Carbon Tet.

Inf(ua/U<25<25<25<25<25<25<25<25<25<25<25<25

Effl

(ua/U7

3.88.23.13.45.3

<0.25<0.254.1

<0.254

<0.25

Chloroform

Inf(ua/U<100<100<100<100<100<100<100<100<100<100<100<100

Effl

(ua/U25

14.760.813.412.118.112.414.615.31419

12.4

Trts(2-chloroethy1)phosphate

Inf(ua/U879879879879879879879879879879879879

Effl

(ua/U1581134335439

43.835.129.895.373.817132

RateLom/kW

1.861.580.551.431.601.54,16.22.71.91.26.70

AcetoneInf

(ua/U<DL<DL<DL<DL<DL<DL<DL<DL<DL<DL<DL<DL

Effl

(ua/U<DL29.177.611.616

29.717.824.143.6<DL50

35.4

Rev. 19/29/2003

2P1202 ;Page 11

APPENDIX 2: BATCH TEST ON EW2 GROUNDWATER

Time(hr)0

4.55.56.57.58.59.510.5

Power(kW)7.27.27.27.27.27.27.27.2

Treatment(kWh/m3)

042.251.661.070.479.889.298.6

TCE(PPb)

6570003.33.52.892.27<1

PCE(PPb)4600<0.8

Me(PPb)180056626318315171.54724

)CIRate

0.460.620.620.590.670.680.73

Trichlorof(PPb)13200117080643049927716297

uoromethRate

0.960.900.940.780.810.820.83

1,1(ppb)

- '53.231.413.6157.352

2-TCARate

0.170.370.300.410.440.55

Chic(PPb)

-100.368.540.142.624.917<1

>roformRate

0.120.250.200.290.330.78

Acetone(PPb).

127<1

37.944.228.32315

Tris(2-chloroe«(PPb)177337.613.47.83.9<1

iyl)phosp.Rate

1.521.581.481.451.56

Rev. 19/29/2003

2P1202 Pagei2

APPENDIX 3: FULL-SCALE PHOTO-CAT OPTION 2

Table 1 lists the anticipated discharge concentrations of targeted parameters after treatment with a nominal 96 kW Photo-Cat system. Table2 lists the O&M costs for the first 5 years.

Table A3-1: Anticipated Discharge Concentrations - 96kW Photo-Cat @. 38 gpm

ParameterTrichloroetheneTetracloroetheneCarbon TetrachlorideChloroform1 , 1 ,2-TrichloroethaneTris(2-chloroethyl)phosphateMethylene ChlorideTrichlorofluoromethane

[Influent]744301115<25<100<608792391605

[Effluent]ND-23

15.5~7-25-24323150941

All concentrations are in ppb.

Table A3-2: O&M Costs for the 96kW Photo-Cat System.

Photo-Cat O&M Costs

O&M Item:

'hoto-Cat Electrical

Hydrogen Peroxide

Sulphuric AcidSodium Hydroxide.amp ReplacementTotals:

UnHPrice

$0.067 kWh

$0.63/ kg 35%$0.25/ kg 93%

$0.32/kg50%2 year life

Annual O&M

Yearl

$58,671

$67,584$802

$1,890$0

$128,947

Year 2

$58,671

$67,584$802

$1,890$0

$128,947

Year3

$58,671

$67,584

$802$1,890$30,555$159,502

Year 4

$58,671

$67.584$802

$1,890

$0$128,947

Years

$58,671

$67,584$802

$1,890$.15,277

$144,225

Total

$293,357

$337,922$4,008$9,449

. $45,832$690,569

Note: Hydrogen peroxide costs may be reduced with additional optimization testing.

iIIIII

Rev. 19/29/2003

I

I APPENDIX D

| PILOT TEST SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Rev. 19/29/2003

TABLE D-1SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL PROGRAM FOR PILOT TEST

CROSSLEY FARM SITEHEREFORD TOWNSHIP, BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

Sample Type

Influent Samples1

Effluent Samples2

All Samples3

Analytical Parameters• ..: ,".'. ---e • ' • ' '. ' - . - •• ':-: ' • . : • . • ,•:':" V- ' -V

TCL VOCs

TCL VOCs (low cone.)

TCL SVOCs & Tris compounds4

TPHTALMetals/CN

Sulfate, Nitrate, Fluoride, and ChlorideT.DSTSSTOCCODBOD

Hardness

Analytical Methods

SW-846 8260

SW-846 8260

SW-846 8270EPA 41 8.1

SW-846 6010/7470/9012EPA 300

EPA 160.1EPA 160.2

SW-846 9060EPA 41 0.0EPA 405.1EPA 130.2

Required Turnaround Time;

<24 hr (immediate analysis)

<24 hr (immediate analysis)

48 hr48 hr48 hr48 hr48 hr24 hr24 hr72 hr

7 days48 hr

Notes:

1lnfluent Samples include samples collected from Sample Ports 1, 2, and 3. They contain high levels of VOCs. Please refer to the"Comparison Table" for the anticipated concentrations of VOCs in the 1st influent mix. The 2nd influent mix is anticipated to havesimilar concentrations as those in the EW-2 groundwater.

Affluent Samples include samples collected from Sample Ports 4, 5, and 6. They should contain only very low concentrations ofVOCs and should be at or below PADEP's discharge limits. Please refer to the "Comparison Table" for PADEP's discharge limits.

3AII Samples include samples collected from all sample ports.

"Tris compounds include tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate and tris(2-ethy!hexyl)phosphate. It should be expected that Tris compoundsare in 1,000 ppb - 2,250 ppb in influent and at or below 5 ppb in effluent. Please refer to "Extraction Well Semivolatile OrganicCompound Concentrations" for Tris compounds and other SVOCs detected.

TABLE D-2SUMMARY OF TESTING CONDITIONS AND ANALYTICAL DATA MANAGEMENT

CROSSLEY FARM SITEHEREFORD TOWNSHIP, BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

Sample ID

ContinuousFlow

A-1-01AA-1-01BA-1-01CA-1-11

A-4-01

A-4-03A-4-04A-4-05

A-4-07A-4-08A-4-09A-4-10

A-4-12

A-S-09A-5-12

Bitch Trat

rankB

B-1-01

B-4-01B-4-02M-03

B-4-041-4-058-4-06B-4-07

Tilting Conditions

Flow Rate

l/mln

5.2

3.73.73.7

2.62.63.73.7

3.7

3.73.7

Timehr

0

4.55.56.57.58.59.510.5

Power

kW

4.8

4.87.27.2

7.27.24.84.8

7.2

4.87.2

Power

kW

7.2

7.27.27.27.27.27.27.2

kWh/m'

15.4

21.632.432.4

46.246.221.621.8

32.4

21.632.4

Treatment

kWh/m1

0

42.251.661.070.479.889.298.6

pH

2.8

2.82.87

2.82.85.34.6

4.4

5.34.4

H.O, Cone,

mg/l

560

25560560

8001200560560

560

560560

Carbon Vessel Test*

C-5-01C-5-02C-5-03C-5-04C-6-02

potable water from AIWeffluent from carbon vessels immediate after test startedeffluent from carbon vessels after -70 aal flusheffluent from 1st carbon vessel after -50 aal flushwater from Baker tank

Metil Filtration Trail

M-5-01M-5-02M-6-01

water from Baker tank through 5 micron cartridge filterwater from Baker tank through 1 micron cartridge filterwater from Baker tank through 10 micron cartridge filter

Effluent Simple Analyzed by EPA

C-6-03 water from Baker tank

SampleDelivered

/2 8/03 -1230/28/03-1830

5/2/03-07005/8/03-1830

5/2/03-0700

5/2/03-16185/3/03 - 06305/3/03-1150

5/5/03-1512/5/03-1615/B/03-1245

5/6/03-1605

5/7/03-1435

5/6/03-12455/8/03-1240

5/8/03-1605

5/7/03-1700

5/8/03-12405/8/03-12405/8/03-16305/6/03-16305/8/03 - 18305/9/03 - 12355/9/03-1235

5/16/03-14315/16/03-150!5/16/03-15315/21/20035/21/2003

5/15/03-1605/15/03-1705/15/03-1710

5/21/2003

Analysis Req

VOC

24-hr

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

n/on/0n/o

. X

svoc

41-hr

n/on/o

n/o

X

X

X

X

X

X

n/oX

n/on/on/on/on/o

n/on/on/o

X

Metal* &Cyanide

48-hr

n/on/o

X

X

X

X

n/o

X

X

n/o

X

n/oX

n/on/on/on/on/o

n/on/on/on/on/o

X

X

X

X

Aniora

48-hr

n/on/o

X

X

X

X

n/o

X

X

n/o

n/o

n/on/on/on/on/on/oX

n/on/on/on/on/o

n/on/on/o

X

TSS

24-hr

n/on/o

X

X

X

X

n/o

X

X

n/o

n/o

n/on/on/on/on/on/o

X

n/on/on/on/on/o

n/on/on/o

X

TDS

48-hr

n/on/o

X

X

X

X

n/o

X

X

n/o

n/o

n/on/on/on/on/on/oX

n/on/on/on/on/o

n/on/on/o

X

red

HardneM

48-hr

n/on/o

X

X

X

X

n/o

X

X

n/o

n/o

n/on/on/on/on/on/on/o

n/on/on/on/on/o

n/on/on/o

X

TPH

48-hr

n/on/o

X

n/o

n/o

n/on/on/on/o

n/o

X

X

n/o

n/o


n/on/on/on/on/o

n/on/on/o

X

TOC

24-hr

n/on/o

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

n/o

X

X

X

X

X

X

n/on/o

n/on/on/on/on/o

n/on/on/o

X

COD

72-hr

n/on/o

n/o

n/on/on/o

n/on/on/on/o

n/o

n/on/o

n/o

n/o


n/on/on/on/on/o

n/on/on/o

X

BOD

7-day

n/on/o

n/o

n/on/on/o

n/on/on/on/o

n/o

n/on/o

n/o

n/o


n/on/on/on/on/o

n/on/on/o

X

DataPackage

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Note: V means that TtNUS has received preliminary results and/or final data packages.V means that analysis was cancelled by TtNUS."n/o" means that TtNUS did not request analysis of the parameter.

UDOCUMMENTS/RAC/RAC3/4191/17407 Page 1 of 1

IIIIIIII' APPENDIX E

I PILOT TEST SUMMARY RESULTS

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Rev. 19/29/2003

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

TABLE E-1SUMMARY OF VOCs RESULTS

PILOT TEST, CROSSLEY FARM SITEHEREFORD TOWNSHIP, BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

VOC Detected (ug/l)

1 1-TRICHLOROETHANE.1 TETRACHLbROETHANE"1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE

.1-DICHLOROETHANE

.1-DICHLOROETHEN£Ij TRICHLOROBENZENi;,2.4-TRICHLOROBENZENE

1 .2-DIBROMO-30COHOPROPANE,2-DIBROMOETHANE1

12-DICHLOROBENZENe.2-DiCHLOROETHANE1

,2-DICHLOROPROPANE.S-DICHLOROBtNZENE.4-OICHLOROBENZENE

2-BUTANONE1 ~'-HEXANONE

4-METHYL-2-PENfANONEVCETONE

BENZENE1ROMOCHLOROM ETHANEiROMODICHLOROMETHANE

BROMOFORMiROMOMETHANE1

^RBONDISULFIDE1

CARBON TETHACHLOHIDE^

JHLORODIBRCiMbMETMANE "3HLOROETHANECHLOROFORM ' 'CHLOHOMETrUN^ '2IS-1 ,2-OICHLOROETHENE;iS-1,3-biCHLOR5pR6PENE "CYCLOHEXANE3IBROMOCHLOROMETHANE " "DiCHLOROMETHANE1

3ICHLORODIFLUOHOMETHANErWLBENZENE=LUOROTRICHLOROMETHANESOPROPYLBENZENEMETHYL ACETAtEBETHYL VERT-BUTYL ETHEFMETHYLCYCL6HEXANE3TYRENETETRACHLOROETHE^TOLUENETRANS-1.2-DICHLOROETHENETRANS-1 .3-DI6HLOROPROPENE1

TRICHLOHOETHENETRICHLOROFLUOHOMETHANETRICHLOROTRIFLUOR6ETHASEVINYL CHLORIDEXYLENES. TOTAL

DischargeLimits

1

0.6

ND

0.38

0.25

57

4.7

0.8

2.7

2

k-1-OI-A

-33;;=

16

52

—

181

81

110

864

111

69260360

13

V-1-01-B

1210i'

1420

2428701750

' 280

116700

A-1-ll'f

r-i-NI7fflS

lETsIE

12884

553

8 '

34

164

i96~3

3

1552

24

970001326

1

23T~

1115 '

744301605

24

P~7

" 25

Tl5~

3 ,

937

•Vwtt I

14.4

29li

1 as

14.7^

1 , 78.5

532.7

A-4-03 1

3606107120

65~

ra

io

95019534 '

MO

:isii:::441,i3:

6

:as-1140i='313

A-l-04 1

55

22

lT6~

ai

13.4

67.8

;:iM:;380 f460

(M

ll

16

3T^~

12J

- sas

420

i3JT~

29.7

53^~

iTT"

fSs

480

5!6

17.8

12.4

58.6

340~

A-4H18 I

§3

24.1

,14.6

51,9

442

•'A-4-09 I

~ \B2

43.6

4T~"

15J1

105.3

561.7

A-4-10 I

7 15

14

96

496

Ss

• 23,

50

' 4

19

1K~

10 •,

;!::E;57;;a;::530

mplelDar-S^h

iT?~

35.4

12.4

74.3

d Concentr A-s-oa"!

17

rations (u

3

62

")

13

67

719

:;;tl070?j!

: 2710002843

206

[ B-1-01

1187

< 1808

iiisSOTSbi:

:65700013254

251

fB-4-01• 2.6

21.553.2

127

yysmm

100316.3

500

334420

lT43114

655

263^

3.5 ,806.2

io13.6

37.9

40.1

183.7

55350

"i~T415.1 '

442

42.6

150.9

23310

457J

28.3

24.9

71.5

276.6

5"5

23

'

"

4T

I

2~162

;

r

-

Li—

~

~

~

22

15

iT1"

97

!:«i»i9il:iM?

!W6* i

552 '8.9

1 C-5-03

iS3

16.25I:-:

eo !8.9

S2B

0.95

0.76

0.45 J

022 J

SJB

0.76

0.95

0.45 J

0.22 B

Note: Blank Held means non-detect or below detectfan level, unless otherwise noted.'-• means that analysis was not requested.Discharge limtts are the average monthly concentrations (In ug/l or mgfl) provided in PADEP tetters dated April 3 and April 10,2003.

C^Documents and Settings\ouv\My DocumentsVCrossley FarrrtPflotTest-Treatability Study\Data Summary Table-02&E1*4

TABLE E-2SUMMARY OF SVOCs RESULTS


SVOC Detected (ug/l)

,1'-BlphenyJ2,g'-Oxybis(l -chloropropane)2.4,6-Trichlorophenol

,4,6-Trichlorophenol2,4-Dlchlorophenol2,4-Dlmetnylpnenol

2,4-Dinilratoluene2,6-Dlnitrotoluene2-Chloronaphthalene2-Chlorophenol2-Methylnaphlhalene2-Melhyl phenol2-Nitroanlline2-Nilrophenol,3'-Otchlorobenzidlne-Nitroanlline,6-Dlnltro-2-methylphenol-Bromophenyt-phenylelher-Chloro-3-methylphenol

i-Chlorophenyl-phenylelherl-Methylphenol'-Nitroanlline>-Nitrophenol

AcenaphtheneAcenaphlhyteneAcelophenoneAnthraceneAtrazine

lenzo(alenzofaienzo(b

pyrenefluoranthene

3enzo(g,h,l)perylene —8enzo(k)fluoranlhene3ls(2-chloroemoxy)methaneSls(2-chloroelhyl)ether3is(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

SaprolactumlarbazoleJhryseneDibenz(a.h)anthraceneDibenzofuran3lelhylphthalate

a-n-butylphlhalate31-n-octylphthalalenuoranthene=luoreneHexachtorobenzene^exachlorobutadiene

Hexachloroethanelndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyreneIsophoroneNaphthalene

N-nltroso-dl-n-propylamineN-nllrosodlphenylaminePentachlorophenolPhenanthrenePhenolPyreneTris(2-chioroetnyi)pnospnaie

'l8Ch8f9O

LimitsSample ID and Concentrations (u

r1-01-A

.-

.-

.-

.-.-

-.--

----

-----.

.•

.-

.-

.

-...

-

0.5

A-1-11

.- -

-..

.-

--.

--

.

--

.

.--

-

.

--

' ----..--..

-

.

-.-

-.-

-

—

-

A-2-01

1.5

A-4-01

0.8

A-4-02 A-4-03

0.3

A-4-04 A-4-05

39

A-4-06

0.3

438

A-4-07

0.3

' 35 •(

A-4-08

0.2

298

0.3

953 738

A-4-11

'(

'ii

!'l!

I")

'>

'

17t

0.4

323

fl)

0.5

A-6-01

0.2

B-1H)1

0.8

5.3

17732

B-4-01

0.2

376

B-4-02

0.1

] =

B-4-03

!

iI

II

I1

11

0.2

/

,1 -

•

B-4-04

0.2

B-4-05

0.2

B-4-06

---

----

--

----

-------

,------

---------

------

------

:

-

B-4-07

0.5

C-6-03 (prel.

0.55 Jf

0.41 JE

0.50 J

ND

C-6-03 (valid

0.55 I

0.41 E

0.50 J

:

Note: Blank field means non-detect or below detection level, unless otherwise noted,'-•means that analysis was not requested.Discharge limits ars ths avsrsgs monthly concerarawons (in ug/! or mn/i) provided in PADEP letters dated April 3 and April 10,2003.

C:\Documents and Settings\ouv\My Documents\CrossleyFarm\Pilot Test-Treatability Study\Data Summary-Table - D2 & E1-E4

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

TABLE E-3SUMMARY OF INORGANIC COMPOUNDS RESULTS .


Inorganics Detected (mgfl)

AluminumAntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumCalciumChromium (total)CobaltCopperCyanideIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseMercuryMolybdenumNickelPotassiumSeleniumSilverSodiumThalliumVanadiumZinc

DischargeLimits

Sample ID and Concentrations (mg/l)

A-1-01-A---

--

------

-------

A-1-01-B0.0520.005

0.049

21.5

0.063

2.570.0233.550.136

0.0072.41

3.39;«0.327ihi

0.035

A-1-11-

---

---

--

---

-

-

A-2-01

cUOIW!

0.055

20.1

0.063

0.0163.110.113

0.0080.0160.052

0.0062.420.251

0.015

A-4-01

3M.011B

0.405

18.9

0.026

0.090.0183.160.114 '

0.0080.0240.142

0.0582.310.18

0.02

A-4-02

0.289

19.9

0.026

0.0430.008'3.090.112

0.0180.101

0.0262.560.244

0.14

A-4-03

a 0:01 5;;;:

0.16

17.6

0.025

0.029

3.070.11

0.017

0.051

0.0093.710.34

0.021

A-4-04

SOJOOS'i;;

0.141

20.9

0.008

0.047

0.070.0053.250.104

0.0160.01

0.094

3.640.014

A-4-05

W-S.O;012

0.101

20.70.007

0.051

0.022010173.26

' 01101

0.020.0140.0320.0020.001

16.30.132

A-4-06

!M 0.012; =

0.108

0.00522.40.006

0.042

0.0470.0073.330.102

0.0160.0180.0680.002

4.07

A-4-07

•;:',;o:oi8s:

0.103

22.30.006

0.044

0.044

3.360.105

0.0120.0080.064

4.350.13

A-4-08

0.087

20

0.023

0.039

3.270.107

0.010.0130.09

4.220.127

A-4-09

0.071

180.0050.0220.033

0.0133.32

0.101

0.0090.0190.0160.0010.001

26' 0.259

0.02

A-4-100.007

is;o:oo7E;-

0.0710.001

17.50.0060.0070.03

0.0120.0113.290.102

0.0060.0180.032

22.20.027

0.027

A-4-11

3S0.014v:r;

0.048

17.40.005

0.03

.. 0.013H3.270.026

0.010.0150.009

560.127

0.021

A-4-12

' I

- [•• F• I- i- i- I- 1- \- \- I• 1

- f• 1- ),- i'- t. 'i

• 1• '(

- 1- !- 'I

A-5-02

% 0:2720.0050:1730.0790.001

26.7

0.006

0.082

0.0080.1244.09

0.007

0.0340.01

0.021

400.4920.031

A-5-090.059

0.0230.1

0.001

18.9

0.0290.031

, 0.0134.06

0.0130.0220.007

31.1' 0.027

0.057

A-5-120.03

M0.oo7s;:

0.387

21.20.0070.020.083

0.0230.0234.130291

0.0070.1430.1550.004

16.4,0.127

0.292

A-6-010.085

•!ilOJ039Mi-;0.236

21.7

0.0110.0120.107

-0.03

4.59

0.179

0.0190.0750.249

20.4

0.1290.0080.059

TankB-

-

--

-

-----

------

B-1-010.035

0.0780.002

saooea19.1

0.01

0.013-

?33:34"S:;iS:0:012.'!i

4.26

Ss:0:077i!s

0.0090.0172.85

5.77

i!R:0:13:::,r.

0.015

B-4-01•

•--

----

----

--

--

B-4-020.037 .

jftoaw'i

0.193

24.30.0240.0180.178

-

0.021

4.84

iBriOMm0.00030.0190.0390.3250.005

158

!::,.n.258.R

0.042

B-4-03

-- •

-

--

-

---

---

-

B-4-04-

---

-

--

---

-

---

--

-

?B-4-05i -

----

• -1 -

--

1 •--

--

( ---

!l -'1 -

--

B-4-06.--

• ----.---.

---

---

-

B-4-07

-

--

-

-

-

--

• -.

-----

---

-

M-5-010.0870.0120.0420.136

19.60.02

0.092

0.0470.0273.9

0.099

0.0140.0291.26

0.00234.5

0.1720.017.46

M-5-020.1030.0090.0560.138

0.00520.60.021

0.091-

0.0380.0173.850.09

0.0240.0251.01

0.0010.00226.1

0.1660.0110.319

M-6-010.099

0.0660.129

200.0210.0120.087

0.0540.017-3.780.131

0.0180.0281.76

0.00226.8

0.1910.0110.044

EPA's Effluent SampleC-6-03 (prel.)

0.0850.00880.06280.123

0.00005 J0.00004 J

200.00033 J

0.00420.0007 J

UUU

3.78 J0.0739

U

0.02124.32 J

UU

65.30.00006 J

0.01030.0184

C-6-03 (valid.)0.085 L

0.0099 B0.0628 L0:123L

0.00005 J0.00004 J

200.00033 J0.0042 L0.0007 B

U

U3.78 J

0.0739 LU-

0.0212 B4.32 J

UU

65.30.00006 B0.0102 L0.018 J

Note: Blank field means non-detect or below detection level, unless otherwise noted.•-* means that analysis was not requested.Discharge limits are the average monthly concentrations (in ug/l or mgfl) provided in PADEP letters dated April 3 and April 10,2003.

C:\Documents and SettingsNouvWy DocumentsVCrossley FamAPUot Tea-Treatability StudySData Summary Table - O2 & £1-E4

II

TABLE E-4SUMMARY OF MISCELLANEOUS PARAMETERS RESULTS


• Analytes (mg/l)

Hlfate[Nitrate (NO3')

[Nitrite (NO,")

•JondeT"Kioride~Bromide(PhosphateWS•>S•5c~~~[COD[BODKrdness

•Hp (S.U.)(Conductivity (mS/cm)rbidity (NTU)

Bssoived OxygenBmperature rC)[Salinity (%)

DischargeLimits

500Monitor

A-1-01-A-

-

-

-----------

6.24

0.10532

6.44

17.2

-

A-1-01-B14

1.4

-

5--

1061

370

44

6.59

0.117

284.3

18.3

•

A-1-11-

- '

-

------

---

7.66

0.1520

5.71

16.6

0

A-2-0116

1.4

-

6--

9023226

56

6.47

0.1170

6.33

19

-

A-4-0121

1.3

-

80--

26044

62

2.28

-0.0010

15.72

30.5

-

A-4-0221

1.2

-

117

--

194

4

54-

2.79

-

015.56

31.1

0

A-4-0321

0.8

- '

0.295--

104

4

62-

2.95

0.5870

3.44

33.2

0.02

A-4-0422

1.2

-

113--

194

34--

56

2.85

-

019.99

32.4

0

A-4-0520

-

109-

2601

4--

58- _

3.67

0.4190

19.99

28.5

0.01

A-4-0622

1.1

-

104--

294

7--

58-

2.95

0.6880

18.66

23.7

0.02

A-4-0722 '

1.2

-

105--

3101

4

60-

3.01

0.6610

18.59

25.7

0.02

A-4-0822

1.2

-

104

--

33414--

54-

2.96

0.71

019.99

23.9

0.03

A-4-0919.6

1.2

-

102.4

--

25834

•-

56

•5.53

0.3850

19.99

21.9

0.01

A-4-1019.2

1.2

-

101.7

--

268

4

--

54

-5.51

0.3440

15.68

25.2

0.01

A-4-1119.7

J 1j

0.2103.6

' -368

,3

' -; -56

7.61

0.516

,016.08

16.6

0

A-4-12-

-

-

-----------

5.19

0.3610

17.86

35.6

0

A-5-026

-

0.190

--

338

4

•-

66

9.5-

06.8

27.7

0

A-5-099.2

-

0.199.2

304

4

--

68

7.93

0.4030 .

19.99

18.4

0

A-5-122.5

-

0.295.8

--

24834--

88

6.53

0.3690

19.99

37.4

0.01

A-6-017

-

0.1

81

- •-

236

5

58

7.75

0.3540

10.2

18.5

0.01

TankB-

-

-

-

-------------

-

-

B-1-01. i

•

-•

-.

6----

7.03

-

195.75

20.7

0

B-4-01-

-

' •

------

5----

3.81

-

018.12

22.2

0

B-4-02-

-

--•---4

----

3.88

-

015.43.26.1 1

0 I

B-4-03-

-

-

------4----

3.51

2.06

015.83

30.2

0.09

B-4-04-

-

-

-

-

4----

3.44

016.1

330

B-4-05

-

-

-

.'-•-

-

4----

3.35

2.12

019.99

35.3

0.1

B-4-06-

-

-

-----------

3.31

0.1690

19.13

36.5

0

B-4-0730

-

705

--

1310

8-----

3.29

019.99

32.3

0

ERA'S Effluent SampleC-6-03 (prel.)

8.60

<0.15

<1.0

0.17982.5

<0.50<0.25216<4

<1.0J

<4.0

72.1

<5

C-6-03 (valid.)8.60

<0.15

<1.0

0.17982.5

<0.50<0.25216<4

<1.0J

<10<4.0

72.1

III1IIIIIBI

Note: Blank field means non-detect or below detection level, unless otherwise noted.'-' means that analysis was not requested.Discharge limits are the average monthly concentrations (in ug/1 or mg/l) provided in P ADEP letters dated April 3 and April 10,2003.

C:\Documents and SettingsVxMMy Documents\Crosstey FarmVPilot Test-Treatability StudyVOata Summary Table - O2 & €1-E4