Records Collections | US Environmental Protection Agency · 2019. 12. 10. · Golder Associates...

Golder Associates Inc.305 Fellowship Road, Suite 200Mt. Laurel, NJ USA 08054Tel: (609) 273-1110Fax (609) 273-0778

/ us* \

ELIZABETHTOWN LANDFILLREMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDYTREATABILITY STUDIES EVALUATION REPORT

Prepared for:

SCA Services of Pennsylvania, Inc.1121 Bordentown RoadMorrisville, Pennsylvania

DISTRIBUTION: . - " :;

1 Copy - USEPA1 Copy - CH2M Hill4 Copies - , SCA Services of Pennsylvania, Inc.2 Copies - Colder Associates Inc.1 Copy - PADER, John Smith1 Copy - PADER, Tom Lever

April 1993 • Project No.: 923-6053

____________________flR30388QOFPir-pC! IN Al ICTI5AI IA ("AMAHA CPDMANV HI IMf^ADV ITAIV SWPDPN I INIITFn KINGnOM. UNITED STATES

Golder Associates Inc.305 Fellowship Road, Suite 200Mt. Laurel, NJ USA 08054Tel: (609) 273-1110Fax (609) 273-0778

April 2, 1993 Project No.: 923-6053

SCA Services of Pennsylvania, Inc.1121 Bordentown RoadMorrisville, PA 19067

Attn: Mr. Glen Schultz

RE: ELIZABETHTOWN LANDFILLREMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY (RI/FS)TREATABILITY STUDIES EVALUATION REPORT

Gentlemen: ' .

Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) is pleased to forward herewith four (4) copies ofthe Treatability Studies Evaluation Report (TSER) for the Elizabethtown Landfillsite.

One (1) copy has been forwarded direct to USEPA (Attention Ms. SherryGallagher); one (1) copy direct to CH2M Hill (Attention Mr. Mike Christopher) andtwo (2) copies to PADER (Attention Mr. John Smith, Attention Mr. Tom Lever).

Should you have any question, please do not hesitate to call at (609) 273-1110.

Very truly yours,

GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC.

£. (jU>!

Cavanagh V\ Geoffrey R. Forrest, C.P.Eng.Environmental Scientist Associate

JEC/GRF:lrl

cc: Rick KarrMatt NeelyDarryl Borelli

AR30388IOFFICES IN AUSTRALIA, CANADA, GERMANY, HUNGARY, ITALY, SWEDEN, UNITED KINGDOM, UNITED STATES

April 1993 -i- 923-6053

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cover Letter

Table of Contents i

SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................... 1

2.0 TECHNICAL BASIS FOR EVALUATINGTREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES ................................ 32.1. Groundwater Influent Charateristics ...................... 3

2.1.1 Groundwater Influent Flow Rate ................... 32.1.2 Groundwater Influent Quality ..................... 4

2.2 Leachate Influent Characteristics ........................ 52.3 Combined Leachate and Groundwater Influent Stream ....... 52.4 Discharge Options .".................................. 6

2.4.1 Evaluation of Discharge Option 2 ................... 72.4.2 Evaluation of Discharge Option 4 ................... 8

2.5 Level of Treatment ................................... 8

3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES ....... 103.1 General ........................................... 103.2 Air Stripping ....................................... 10

3.2.1 Description ................................... 103.2.2 RREL Database Information ...................... 123.2.3 Other Information .....:....................... 133.2.4 Effectiveness .................................. 15

3.3 Granular Activated Carbon ............................ 163.3.1 Description ................................... 163.3.2 RREL Database Information ...................... 173.3.3 Other Information ............................. 183.3.4 Effectiveness .................................. 19

3.4 Ion Exchange ...................................... 203.4.1 Description ................................... 203.4.2 RREL Database Information ...................... 213.4.3 Other Information ............................. 213.4.4 Effectiveness .................................. 22

Golder Associates

April 1993 -ii- 923-6053

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Confd)

SECTION PAGE

35 Reverse Osmosis .................................... 223.5.1 Description ................................... 2235.2 RREL Database Information ...................... 233.5.3 Other Information ............................. 2435.4 Effectiveness .................................. 24

3.6 Precipitation and Coagulation ......................... 253.6.1 Description ................................... 253.6.2 RREL Database Information ...................... 263.6.3 Other Information ............................. 273.6.4 Effectiveness .................................. 28

3.7 Biological Treatment ................... '. ............. 283.7.1 Description ..................... '. ............. 283.7.2 RREL Database Information ...................... 303.7.3 Other Information ............................. 313.7.4" Effectiveness .................................. 33

3.8 Chemical Oxidation (including UV/OyH2O2) .............. 333.8.1 Description ................................... 333.8.2 RREL Database Information ...................... 343.8.3 Other Information ............................. 353.8.4 Effectiveness .................................. 36

4.0 REVIEW OF VENDOR INFORMATION ....................... 384.1 Zimpro Passavant Environmental Systems, Inc. (PACT System) 39

4.1.1 Description ................................... 394.1.2 Operational Experience ......................... 394.1.3 Applicability to the Site's Waste Stream ............. 40

4.2 Other Information .................................. 41

5.0 REGULATORY ISSUES .................................... 42

6.0 SUMMARY .............................. . . ............. 43i

7.0 REFERENCES ........................................... 45

8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................... 46

Golder Associates

AR3Q3883

April 1993 -iii- 923-6053

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Confd)

In OrderFollowingPage 48

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Groundwater and Leachate Constituents and Influent and EffluentCriteria

Table 2 Guide to Air Stripping of VOCs and Other CompoundsTable 3 Regulations and Permits Pertaining to Management and Disposal of

Treatment Effluent and ResidualsTable 4 Summary of Treatment Technologies and Potential ApplicabilityTable 5 Summary of Best Available Technologies

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A RREL Treatability Database InformationAppendix Al Technology Codes and General InformationAppendix A2 Volatile Organic CompoundsAppendix A3 Semi-Volatile Organic CompoundsAppendix A4 PesticidesAppendix A5 Metals

Appendix B Treatability Studies EvaluationAppendix Bl Air StrippingAppendix B2 Granular Activated CarbonAppendix B3 Ion ExchangeAppendix B4 Reverse OsmosisAppendix B5 Precipitation and CoagulationAppendix B6 Biological TreatmentAppendix B7 Chemical Oxidation (includingAppendix B8 References

Golder Associates

AR303881*

April 1993 -1- 923-6053

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Consent Order for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RVFS) for theElizabethtown Landfill, Docket No. III-90-44-DC, Section H2 states that the:

"Respondent shall conduct treatability studies, except where Respondentcan demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that they are not needed".

The EPA has advised that bench or pilot scale treatability studies may not berequired for the Elizabethtown Landfill Site (Site), provided that a literature searchand review is conducted prior to or at the very early stages of the FS whichadequately assesses the technologies identified for the treatment of contaminantsin the grouridwater and leachate at the Site. On the basis of the above, a

Treatability Study Work Plan (TSWP) was prepared which outlined the objectivesand methodologies to be used in performing the study. The purpose of this

Treatability Studies Evaluation Report (TSER) is to present a desktop evaluation"of treatment technologies and to identify processes most applicable to thetreatment of the contaminants identified in groundwater and leachate at the Site.

The Candidate Technologies Memorandum (CTM) prepared for the Site identifiedremedial technologies that would be considered during the FS. The CTM(Reference 1) assumed that groundwater at the Site is primarily contaminated withvolatile organic compounds (VOC) and therefore, focused on technologiesapplicable to removal of VOCs. The TSWP (Reference 2) considered VOCs inaddition to metals, semi-volatiles organic compounds (SVOC), and pesticides in thegroundwater and leachate as potential constituents in the treatment influent.Therefore, the treatment of VOCs, SVOCs, metals, and pesticides are evaluated inthis TSER. .

In order to establish a technical basis for the assessment of the treatmenttechnologies, a conceptual groundwater extraction system was developed and a

Golder AssociatesftR3,Q3885

April 1993 -2- 923-6053

treatment influent water quality was estimated from the existing RI information.This conceptual system is described in further defail in Section 2.0. In addition,discharge limitations were developed to estimate the level of treatment requiredfor the various influent parameters.

The applicable technologies were then assessed in regards to the estimated influentflow rate, influent water chemistry, and the required level of treatment.

Golder Associates _ _ _ _AR303886

April 1993 -3- 923-6053

2.0 TECHNICAL BASIS FOR EVALUATING TREATMENTTECHNOLOGIES

This section estimates the characteristics (flow rate and chemistry) of the influent

stream to be treated and the discharge limitations of the effluent. The resultinglevel of treatment required provides the basis for the assessment of treatmenttechnologies.

2.1 Groundwater Influent Characteristics

2.1.1 Groundwater Influent Flow Rate

A conceptual groundwater extraction system was developed for the sole purpose

of estimating the flow rate of the groundwater influent stream and theconcentrations of constituents in the influent. A preliminary systemconceptualized for the project consists of ten extraction wells. These wells wouldbe arranged in two groups. It is envisioned that six wells would be placed in theimmediate vicinity of the landfill to capture groundwater and preventdowngradient dispersal of leachate constituents and that four wells would beplaced further from the landfill, around the downgradient periphery of the Site.It is also anticipated that these wells would capture any constituents existing to thenorth and west of the Site, and thus prevent downgradient migration of theplumes.

The pumping rate of individual extraction wells was estimated using Todd'sformula (Todd, 1959):

Q2y: =TI

where:Q = Pumping rate (ftVday);T = Aquifer transmissivity (ftVday);I = Hydraulic gradient (ft/ft);2y = Width of the capture zone (ft);

Golder Associates AR303887

April 1993 -4- 923-6053

Data from the recent packer testing program was used to estimate the aquifer

transmissivity. In the vicinity of the landfill estimated transmissivity ranged from100 ftVday to 200 ftVday. In the vicinity of the Conoy Creek well ED-24 indicateda transmissivity of approximately 500 ftVday. The horizontal hydraulic gradientat the site ranges from.SxlO'2 ft/ft to 5xlO"2 ft/ft. The width of the capture zone forindividual extraction wells was calculated using these input parameters. For anaverage situation the capture zone width of an extraction well is about 350 feet fora pumping rate of 15 gpm in the vicinity of the landfill and 40 gpm in the vicinityof Conoy Creek.

Based on the above, a 200 gallon per minute (gpm) total flow rate for thisconceptual extraction system was estimated.

2.1.2 Groundwater Influent Quality

Table 1 shows the expected chemical characteristics of the influent stream basedon the Phase IB RI (Wet Chemistry) and Phase 1C RI (TCL Organics and TALMetals) groundwater sampling results. The flow rate (as discussed above) andquality of the treatment influent has been estimated by calculating a hypotheticalextraction rate needed to maintain an efficient capture zone in the plume areas.The chemical characteristics of the influent were determined by averaging theconcentration of constituents detected in the monitoring wells within the capturezone of each hypothetical extraction well. The final estimated influentconcentration was determined using a flow weighted average approach ofconstituent concentrations from each extraction well.

This conceptual design anticipates an average influent rate of approximately300,000 gallons per day (gpd) or 200 gpm. While the organic compounds, benzene,chlorobenzene, 1,1-dichloroethane, and bis(2-chloroethyl)ether, are the primaryconcern at the Site, levels of metals and other water quality parameters, whetherattributable to background or not, may affect treatment technology performance

Golder Associates

AR303888

April 1993 -5- 923-6053

or may be limited by discharge criteria and consequently, have been taken into

consideration during the assessment of applicable, technologies.

2.2 Leachate Influent Characteristics

As with groundwater, volumes and constituents of leachate were estimated to helppredict the characteristics of the leachate influent. Table 1 shows the averagechemical constituents of leachate based on analytical results of leachate samplescollected during the RI. Based on the 1992 leachate production rates, theanticipated leachate component of the influent stream is estimated to beapproximately 1000 gpd (0.7 gpm).

2.3 Combined Leachate and Groundwater Influent Stream

The purpose of the conceptual extraction and treatment system is to preventleachate constituents from migrating away from the landfill and to treat thedispersed plume that has presently migrated from the landfill. This system wasbased on hydrogeological properties of the Site. In addition, it is acknowledgedthat it will be necessary to treat leachate generated at the landfill. Thus, acombined leachate and groundwater influent to a treatment system will mostlikely be implemented at the Site and, therefore, a combined waste stream wasevaluated in this Report.

>

The combined influent stream would be based on an estimated groundwater flowrate of approximately 200 gpm and a leachate production rate of approximately0.7 gpm. Using this information, an estimated influent concentration for eachconstituent was determined using a flow weighted average of constituentconcentrations from each waste stream as shown in Table i.

The VOCs are expected in the combined influent stream at concentrations that willrequire treatment prior to discharge. Calculation of metal concentrations likely tobe in the combined influent stream indicates that these concentrations are expected

Golder Associates

•4K303889

April 1993 -6- 923-6053

to be below the influent levels that are allowed by the Elizabethtown PubliclyOwned Treatment Works (POTW) Ordinance (Reference 3) and with the exceptionof manganese, below Pennsylvania Ambient Water Quality Standards (AWQS).It is anticipated that m<3st"SVOCs and pesticides are below AWQS, and all areexpected to be at concentrations below the method detection limits (MDL)specified in the State of Pennsylvania water quality standards (25 PA CodeChapter 93),,,

With these conceptual concentrations expected in the waste stream, the followingdischarge options were evaluated.

2.4 Discharge Options

Four different treatment/discharge options exist for the. Site:

Option 1: No treatment with direct discharge to the Conoy Creek;

Option 2: Treatment and discharge to Conoy Creek;

Option 3: No treatment and discharge to the POTW; and

Option 4: Pretreatment and discharge to the POTW.

Options 1 and 3 are not applicable to this study. Options 2 and 4 were evaluatedwith respect to the estimated combined groundwater and leachate influent flowrates and concentrations, the Pennsylvania AWQS, analytical MDLs, and theBorough of Elizabethtown Ordinance Governing Admission of Industrial WasteInto the Sewerage System and Pennsylvania Department of EnvironmentalResources (PADER) Technical Guidance for NPDES Permitting of Landfill LeachateDischarge (Reference 4) (refer to Table 1).

Golder Associates

AR303890

April 1993 -7- 923-6053

2.4.1 Evaluation of Discharge Option 2

Criteria determining the level of treatment required prior to discharge to ConoyCreek will be dictated by the need to satisfy AWQS under a National PollutantDischarge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. For the purposes of this report,constituent concentrations in the combined groundwater and leachate influentwere compared to the AWQS and the applicable analytical MDL to determine iftreatment of the constituent is required. (It is worth noting that using theestimated constituent concentrations in this comparison is conservative because amass balance calculation (7Q10) was not conducted to account for stream flowdilution during discharge to Conoy Creek) This comparison indicates that VOCsrequire treatment prior to discharge since the levels exceed both the AWQS as wellas the analytical MDL.

The analytical MDL identified by PADER for measuring compliance with theAWQS were also compared to the SVOC and pesticide estimated influent streamlevels. In most cases, AWQS is greater than the estimated influent concentration.In all cases, the MDL is greater than the respective constituent concentration,usually by at least one order of magnitude. It is anticipated that the resultingNPDES limits for these compounds will be "non-detectable" as PADER will definedischarge limits with the greater of AWQS or MDL as part of the NPDESpermitting process. As a result, treatment specific to SVOCs and pesticides is notconsidered to be necessary, but will be realized througrTTmplementation of thetechnologies discussed in the following sections.

The estimated concentration of manganese was greater than the AWQS and MDL.Therefore, the treatment of metals is considered to be required.

Golder Associates

&R30389

April 1993 -8- 923-6053

2.4.2 Evaluation of Discharge Option 4

The Borough of Elizabethtown Ordinance, December, 1989, specifically states"Except as otherwise provided in this Ordinance, no user shall discharge or causeto be discharged into the sewerage system any sewage, industrial waste, or othermatter or substance". (Section 3, 3.1 (E) pg. 9). Golder visited the ElizabethtownPOTW and Borough Hall on March 12,1993 to better define what discharge levelswere acceptable by the POTW. The information obtained indicated that theElizabethtown POTW is designed solely for the treatment of domestic sewage andtherefore, the ordinance precludes the discharge of untreated industrial wastescontaining VOCs, SVOCs, and pesticides. The Ordinance did provide limitationlevels for sonie heavy metals and conventional parameters. The estimated heavymetal and conventional parameter (BOD/COD) concentrations, for which there isan Ordinance standard, were all less than the levels in the Ordinance andtherefore do not need to be considered for treatment. It is considered that themetals without Ordinance influent levels which would have estimatedconcentrations in the low to subpart per million range would not be expected tobe precluded by the POTW.

2.5 Level of Treatment

For the purpose of establishing a technical basis for this report, the level oftreatment required for the influent stream has been estimated by comparing theanalytical MDLs to the estimated influent concentration of compounds assessedin the previous sections as requiring treatment, i.e., VOCs and metals. MDLs wereselected as the resulting NPDES limits will most probably be "non-detect" forcompounds with AWQS levels less than MDL levels. Where there are no MDLsspecified for a particular constituent, the suggested Best Available Technology(BAT) removal efficiency (identified in the PADER NPDES guidance, Reference 4)for that constituent will be used. The percent removal required for each VOCconstituent is shown in Table 1.

Golder Associates&R303892

April 1993 ' -9- 923-6053

iWhile treatment of SVOCs and pesticides does not appear to be required, theirtreatment is considered to address USEPA concerns. However, it is considered

more appropriate to apply BAT to the treatment of these compounds rather thanattempt to compute removal efficiencies, given the low levels of these compoundsin the influent stream and the even lower levels anticipated after treatment (thatmay not be possible to detect by analytical methodologies appropriate underAWQS). '

Golder Associates RR303893

April 1993 -10- 923-6053

3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

3.1 General

The literature review was primarily designed to evaluate technologies that arepotentially applicable for the treatment of VOCs and metals. For completeness,the treatment of SVOCs and pesticides has also been considered. The literaturereview was preceded by a preview of the RREL treatability database (Reference 5)and the VISITT database (Reference 6). The RREL database was scanned forrelevant information on treatment processes including the specific technologies,removal efficiencies, and effluent concentrations. In addition, other sources ofliterature were obtained and reviewed for similar information. The followingsections of this report focus on those technologies most applicable to the Site (asoutlined in the TSWP) and on those processes most likely to obtain the desiredremoval efficiencies and effluent concentrations. (Following a cursory review oftreatability information it became apparent that other technologies were moreapplicable than Ultrafiltration and therefore this technology was not consideredfor further evaluation.)

The information is summarized in the text, Appendix A lists the relevant excerptsfrom the RREL database and Appendix B provides a tabulated summary of theevaluation of relevant techno!6gies.

Information obtained from vendors listed in the VISITT database and from othersources is discussed in detail in Section 4.0.

3.2 Air Stripping

3.2.1 Description

Air stripping is a mass transfer process in which volatile compounds in a waterstream are transferred into an air stream. The extent of removal of a compoundby air stripping is governed by many factors, including air and liquid

Go.d.rA.soc,,,., AR30389U

April 1993 -11- 923-6053

concentrations, air and liquid temperatures, air-to-liquid ratio, and liquid matrixeffects such as the presence of surfactants. If the Henry's law constant of the VOCand the air-to-water ratio of the stripping process is known, the efficiency of VOCremoval by air stripping can be estimated. (Henry's law constant is the ratio of thecompounds vapor pressure to the compounds solubility in water.) Table 2

'v

provides a guide to the removal efficiency of VOCs and other compounds by air

stripping. Both diffusion and mass transfer rates are important, and are a functionof power input, packing medium, and depth (for packed tower snippers),

hydraulic regime (e.g. Reynolds Number), air bubble or water droplet size (forsurface or diffused aeration), and other factors.

Aeration is dependent upon the exposure of the contaminated water to a fresh airsupply. As the air and water mix, the volatiles compounds in the water are drivenout of solution and enter into the vapor phase. Maximizing air/water contact isthe key to any aeration system. There are many ways to achieve this goal andpacked tower aeration (PTA) is the most commonly applied for the removal ofVOCs from water (Sullivan and Lenzo, 1989).

Certain inorganic water quality parameters pose operation and maintenanceconcerns when considering the use of packed column aeration systems. Ofparticular note are the effects of dissolved iron, suspended solids, high microbialpopulations (degradable organics), and hardness (Nyer, 1992).

During the aeration process, dissolved metals such as iron and manganese areoxidized. In most situations, the pH of the water is such that manganesedeposition is not a problem, however the transformation of ferrous iron to ferriciron is a real and often complicating problem in air stripping operations (Nyer,1992). The oxidized iron deposits on the packing material in time cause a buildup that will bridge and clog the packed bed; this leads to a decline in system

Golder Associates

AH3D3895

April 1993 -12- 923-6053

efficiency. Thus, the effectiveness of any control technology will be related to thelevel of iron present. ,

The presence of high populations of microbial bacteria and/or high concentrationsof degradable organics can lead to a biological build up within the packed bed(Nyer, 1992). This problem occurs because the packing material and highlyoxygenated water offer an excellent environment for microbial growth. As withoxidized iron, a biological build up can lead to a deterioration of systemperformance. Biological build-ups are relatively uncommon in packed columnsystems treating groundwater for municipal drinking water applications. Thephenomenon occurs more often in situations involving groundwater cleanups ofpetroleum spills, landfill leachate treatment, or any time there are higher (>10mg/L) concentrations of degradable organics (Nyer, 1992).

Calcium hardness is another operation/maintenance consideration. In the airstripping process, the potential for destabilization of the water is increased as aresult of the removal of dissolved carbon dioxide from the water. The removal ofcarbon dioxide can lead to calcium carbonate deposition within the packed towerand in any post treatment distribution system (Nyer, 1992).

Air stripping is not considered effective for the removal of metals or non-volatileorganic constituents such as phenols, phthalates, or pesticides. Such compoundsmust be removed by other means.

3.2.2 RREL Database Information

Review of the RREL Database information (Appendix A) indicates that typicalremoval efficiencies for air stripping of volatile organic compounds is greater than90 percent for influent concentrations in the range 0-100 ug/1. However, removalefficiency for 1,1-dichloroethane appears to be reduced when influent

concentrations of this compound are very low (RREL Ref. 90D). Similarly high

Golder Associates

AR303896

April 1993 -13- 923-6053

removal efficiencies are documented for VOC influent concentrations in the rangeof 100-1000 ug/1 (Appendix A2).

The single referenced cited for removal of the SVOC, bis(2-chloroethyl)ether,indicates a removal efficiency of greater than 50 percent using air strippingtechnology.

Only 3 references have been cited for metals removal from Superfund wastewaterusing air stripping. They report removal efficiencies of 0, 13 and 27 percent.

There appears to be no information in the RREL database regarding removal ofpesticides using air stripping technologies.

3.2.3 Other Information

Air stripping of 1,1-dichloroethene at an influent concentration of 14,000 part perbillion (ppb) resulted in an effluent concentration of 2800 ppb (Pope andOsantowski, 1987), a removal efficiency of 80 percent. The pilot study wasconducted at ambient temperature with a flow of 10 gpm, an air-to-water ratio of1050:1, and a tower packing height of 5 feet.

i

Trans-l,2-dichloroethene has been removed from 264 ppb to a range of <5 ppb to34 ppb at flows of 0.32 to 1.87 gpm, air-to-water ratios of 15:1 to 132:1, and atemperature of 6°C. Thus, removal efficiencies ranged from 87 to 98 percent. A4-inch diameter tower with a packing height of 8 feet was used in the study. Inthe same study, operating at 20°C, an influent concentration of 103 ppb wasreduced to 5 ppb for flows of 0.69 to 1.80 gpm and air-to-water ratios of 16:1 to41:1, resulting in a removal efficiency of 95 percent. In subsequent trials, effluentconcentrations of 0.95 to 3.8 ppb were achieved for an influent level of 47 ppb atambient temperature (Byers and Morton, 1985). The flow treated was 0.69 to 1.80

Golder AssociatesflR303897

April 1993 -14- 923-6053

gpm, with air-to-water ratios of 70:1 to 21:1. A tower diameter of 5 feet and apacking height of 10 feet was employed in this test.

Mclntyre et al. (1978) reported 70,80, and 90 percent removals of 1,2-, 1,3-, and 1,4-dichlorobenzene, respectively, using a full-scale air stripping column to treat acontinuous flow of 0.66 m3/s of domestic wastewater. A 60 percent reduction ofchlorobenzene was also achieved.

A vinyl chloride concentration of 8.8 ppb was reduced to less than 0.3 ppb for aflow of 1150 gpm at 10°C (a removal efficiency of 96 percent). An 8 foot diametercolumn with a packed bed depth of 24.5 feet was used in conjunction with an air-to-water ratio of 61:1 (Hand et al., 1986). Vinyl chloride concentrations of 4900 to5800 ppb were reduced to <1000 to 1300 ppb during passage through an 8 foot

diameter column with a packed bed depth of 15 feet (Staszak et al., 1987). Theflow rate used was 75 gpm with a temperature of 8-14°C and an air-to-water ratioof 50:1.

Trichloroethene (TCE) at influent concentrations of 50-8000 ppb was treated by airstripping at ambient temperature to achieve up to a 98 percent removal efficiency(Gross and Termaath, 1985). The flow of 300-600 gpm was passed through a 5 footdiameter tower with a packed depth of 18 feet at air-to-water ratios of 10:1 to 25:1.Another stripping study conducted at 10°C reduced TCE concentrations from 72ppb to 1.4 ppb (Hand, et al.,1986), a removal efficiency of 98 percent. The test flowrate was 1150 gpm, with an air-to-water ratio of 61:1, a tower diameter of 8 feet,and a packed tower depth of 24.5 feet. A similar study conducted at 6°C with aninfluent TCE concentration of 342 ppb achieved effluent concentrations of 5 to 54ppb and thus removal efficiencies of 84 to 98.5 percent (Byers and Morton, 1985).The flow varied from 0.32 to 1.87 gpm and was treated using air-to-water ratios of15:1 to 132:1, a tower diameter of 4 inches, and a packing depth of 8 feet.

Golder Associates

AR303898

*

April 1993 -15- 923-6053

In the treatment of tetrachloroethene (PCE) at 20°C, Byers and Morton (1985)reported effluent concentrations of 0.2 to 0.4 ppb when treating an influentcontaining 7 ppb (removal efficiency 94 to 97 percent). During these studies, flowrates ranged from 0.69 to 1.95 gpm, and air-to-water ratios varied from 16:1 to 41:1.The same study reported removing influent levels of 15.3 ppb of PCE to <0.2 to2.0 ppb at 6°C. Air-to-water ratios varied from 15:1 to 132:1. Both tests employeda 4 inch diameter column with a packed depth of 8 feet. Hand et al. (1986) treatedan influent PCE concentration of 59.6 ppb to achieve an effluent concentration of0.96 ppb at a temperature of 10°C. The flow rate employed was 1150 gpm with

an air-to-water ratio of 61:1, a column diameter of 8 feet, and a packed depth of24.5 feet.

Benzene was stripped at 27°C from an influent concentration of 1500 ppb toeffluent levels of 730 ppb, 610 ppb, and 520 ppb using air-to-water ratios of 30:1,60:1, and 150:1, respectively, resulting in removal efficiencies ranging from 51 to65 percent (Stover et al., 1986). The flow rate during these studies was 0.32 gpmthrough a column with a packed bed depth of 2 feet. Staszak et al. (1987) reducedbenzene from a concentration of 890 ppb to 440 ppb at 8 to 14°C (a removalefficiency of 50 percent). An 8 foot diameter column was employed for the studywith a packed bed depth of 15 feet, an air-to-water ratio of 50:1, and a flow rateof 75 gpm.

3.2.4 Effectiveness '

On the basis of the above reviews and information, air stripping is consideredapplicable to the removal of VOCs from the waste stream at the Site and will beretained for further evaluation. Air stripping is expected to provide an overallreduction in contaminant mobility and the toxicity and volume of VOCs in theaqueous phase, to concentration levels below AWQS to allow discharge to eitherConoy Creek or via the POTW. .i

Golder Associates

•flR303ftQQ

April 1993 -16- 923-6053

Appendix Bl provides an indication of typical removal efficiency of site specificVOCs, (some pesticides and conventional parameters) which may be expectedusing air stripping technologies. For example, removal efficiencies are expectedto range from as high as 99.6 percent for vinyl chloride to as low as 50 to 60percent for compounds such as benzene and 1,2-dichloroethane (depending oninfluent concentrations).

A potential concern with using air stripping to treat a combined groundwater andleachate influent stream at the Site is that elevated concentrations of iron in theinfluent may foul the tower packing. In addition, consideration may need to begiven to the treatment of VOCs that are transferred to the gaseous phase.

3.3 Granular Activated Carbon

3.3.1 Description-

This process is used to treat single-phase aqueous organic wastes with highmolecular weight and boiling point and low solubility and polarity, chlorinatedhydrocarbons, and aromatics by passing the waste effluent over or through carbonbeds or columns. Carbon to be used for adsorption is usually treated to producea product with large surface-to-volume ratio, thus, exposing a practical maximumnumber of carbon atoms to be active adsorbers. Carbon so treated is said to be"activated" for adsorption.

The chemistry of carbon is such that most organic compounds and manyinorganics will readily attach themselves to carbon atoms. The strength of thatattachment (and thus, the energy required for subsequent desorption) depends on

the bond formed, which in turn, depends on the specific compound beingadsorbed. Activated carbon which has adsorbed an amount of contaminantsapproaching its adsorptive capacity is severely depleted and is said to be "spent".Spent carbon can be regenerated, but for strongly adsorbed contaminants, the costof such regeneration can be higher than simple replacement with new carbon.

Golder Associates

AR303900

April 1993 -17- 923-6053

Efficiency of adsorption of organic compounds depends on the relativeadsorbability of the individual components (Patterson, 1985). Some generalizationscan be made regarding the adsorbability of certain compounds. Solubility of theorganic contaminant in water is a very important factor. As solubility decreases,

adsorption capacity generally increases. Factors such as pH, temperature, andionic strength, which effect solubility, will also affect adsorption. Verschueren

(1983) has reported a strong correlation between compound solubility and the ratioof sorbed to residual soluble concentration, for a wide range of compounds.

Molecular weight and solubility (polarity) have a pronounce'd effect on adsorption.Usually an increase in molecular weight improves adsorption. Nonpolar

molecules are more strongly adsorbed then are polar molecules. Molecularstructure is another important factor. The influence of substituent groups onadsorbability can be described in general terms. Hydroxyl usually reducesadsorbability because of increased polarity. Amino groups have a similar butgreater effect than hydroxyl. Many amino acids are, in fact, not adsorbed to anyappreciable extent. Carbonyl groups have a variable effect depending on the hostmolecule. Sulfonic groups are polar and decrease adsorbability. Nitro groupsoften increase adsorbability. Generalizations based on molecular structure can alsobe made. Aromatic and substituted aromatic compounds are, in general, moreadsorbable than are aliphatic compounds. Amines, ethers, and halogenatedaliphatic compounds adsorb more efficiently than do low molecular-weightalcphols, gycols, or low molecular weight straight-chain unsubstituted aliphaticcompounds.

3.3.2 RREL Database Informationi

RREL database information (Appendix A2) indicates that removal efficiencies forVOCs is compound specific and. range from greater than 90 percent for

•*• ! '

compounds such as chloroethane, to 80-99 percent for 1,1-dichloroethane(depending on influent concentration), to less than around 50 percent for benzene

t

Golder Associates

AR30390I

April 1993 -18- 923-6053

and chlorobenzene for very low influent concentrations. (Removal efficiencies forthe latter two compounds improve significantly for higher influent concentrations.)

The database indicated a removal efficiency of 49 percent for the semi-volatilecompound bis(2-chloroethyl)ether from Superfund wastewater with an influentconcentration in the range of 0-100 ug/1 (Appendix A3). Improved efficiencies, togreater than 97 percent, were noted for this compound for industrial wastewaterwhen the influent concentration was near or over 1 mg/L.

Removal efficiencies for metals reported in the database (Reference A5) varywidely and range from 0 to 80 percent, depending on the metal and the influentconcentration. For example, arsenic, barium, chromium, magnesium, andmanganese have low reported removal efficiencies of between 0 and 20 percent,while the references indicate for iron and cooper removal efficiencies are in therange of 20 to 80 percent.

The database reports removal efficiencies of greater than 96 percent for pesticidessuch as lindane, chlordane, dieldrin, and endrin present in hazardous leachate atconcentrations between 100 and 1000 ug/L (Appendix A4). Similar efficiencies arerecorded for other pesticides present at similar and lower levels in industrialwastewater.


Mclntyre (1993) indicated that activated carbon is effective as a polishing step forthe elimination of trace organic contaminants including pesticides. Activatedcarbon is also frequently used as the final (polishing) step in the treatment ofdrinking water before it enters the distribution system and for the treatment ofpesticides.

Golder AssociatesAR303902

April 1993 -19- 923-6053

Full scale activated carbon treatment systems do not achieve the maximum carbonloading!; predicted by isothermal experiments, due to the solute competition, masstransfer limitations, and wastewater matrix effects. In one study on the removalof VOCs in pilot carbon columns, carbon loadings at column breakthrough wereless than 20 percent of the calculated capacities (Patterson, 1985).

The effectiveness of using activated carbon for organics removal from leachate isdependent on the proportion of low and high molecular weight free volatile fattyacids and the free volatile fatty acid content of the leachate (Chian, 1976). Carbonadsorption is the process that is most effective for humic and fulvic acid removaland the TOC removal efficiencies generally increase with landfill age (Farquhar,.1988). Using leachate from an old, stabilized landfill, with a BOD:COD ratio of0.04, activated carbon was able to reduce the COD by 85 percent (Chian, 1976).

3.3.4 Effectiveness

The information reviewed above indicates that granular activated carbon may havea wide range of applicability at the Site and will be able to treat and remove,VOCs, SVOCs, and pesticides, particularly if used as a secondary or polishing step.Appendix B2 summarizes the results of the treatability evaluation with respect tothis technology. Information provided in the Federal Primary Drinking WaterStandards (Table 5) indicates that this technology is Best Available Technology forthe treatment of SVOCs and pesticides.

The process may not be as applicable to metals as widely variable removalefficiencies are reported.

In summary, the effectiveness of activated carbon for the removal of organics fromthe Site's waste stream (including trace levels of contaminants) is considered to beapplicable and should be retained for further evaluation. One consideration forthis technology is that spent carbon will need to be regenerated or managed and

t

Golder Associates

&R3039Q3

April 1993 -20- 923-6053

disposed of in accordance with appropriate regulations such as those outlined inSection 5.

3.4 Ion Exchange

3.4.1 Description

Ion exchange is basically the exchange of an ion with a high ion exchangeselectivity for an ion with a lower selectivity. Although there are naturallyoccurring ion exchange media, the process is usually based on the use ofspecifically formulated resins having.an "exchangeable" ion bound to the resinwith a "weak ionic" bond. Ion exchange depends upon the electrochemicalpotential of the ion to be recovered versus that of the exchange ion, and also upon

the concentration of the ions in solution. After a critical relative concentration of"recoverable" ion to exchanged ion in solution is exceeded, the exchange resin issaid to be "spent". Spent resin is usually recharged by exposing it to a veryconcentrated solution of the original exchange ion so that a reverse exchange takesplace. This results in regenerated resin and a concentrated solution of theremoved ion which can then be further processed for recovery and reuse. Theprocess is commonly used to remove toxic metal ions from solution.

Any divalent ion will usually have a higher ion exchange selectivity than will a

monovalent ion. Calcium, which is a divalent, will replace sodium, which ismonovalent, at an exchange site on an ion exchange bed. (This is the basis forwater softening.) The calcium ion, which increases water-hardness, exchangeswith the sodium ion on the ion exchange resin. The calcium is removed from thewater and the water has lost the ions that make it hard.

Golder Associates

SH3039014

April 1993 -21- 923-6053I


Ion exchange and related processes are generally used for removal of metals fromwaste streams and are not normally used for removal of organic compounds, i.e.,VOCs, SVOCs, and pesticides.

. The RREL database information contains only 3 references to the use of ion

exchange for metals removal. One of these is for the removal of manganese fromgroundwater where a removal efficiency of greater than 94 percent was quoted.The other 2 references relate to the. removal of magnesium from industrialwastewater. Removal efficiencies of greater than 95 percent are reported for thesetwo cases. The information presented in Appendix B3 indicates similar removalefficiencies.


The ion exchange process has been utilized for iron and manganese removal(Patterson, 1985). The advantages include smaller capital investment than

coagulation-filtration, greater flow rates, smaller plant requirements, and simple

operation. The obvious drawbacks include the regenerant liquor that is producedby the process requires additional treatment. Further, some ferrous iron leaksthrough the cation exchange column and apparently oxidizes to ferric iron andprecipitates in the anion exchange column. This behavior could result in columnclogging or resin fouling, and could present operating difficulties.

Leachate treatment by ion exchange is reported by Pohland (1975) for leachatewhich had been previously treated biologically. Pohland reported good results

iusing a combination of cationic and anionic exchange resins, removing many ionicspecies as well as dissolved solids and nutrients. Very little residual organicremoval was reported; however the use of mixed resins appears promising as atreatment approach for the non-organic fraction of leachate.

Golder AssociatesAR303.905

April 1993 -22- 923-6053

All of the heavy metals in groundwater are in the divalent or trivalent state, withthe exception of hexavalent chromium. The ion exchange process can beexpensive, and the regeneration brine, with the heavy metals, will still have to bedisposed of off-site (Nyer, 1992). These two problems usually limit the use of ionexchange for large quantities of heavy metals. Generally, the best use ionexchange is for low concentrations and for final treatment before potable use.

3.4.4 Effectiveness

Ion exchange is used primarily for metals removal, for which the literature surveyindicates high removal efficiencies may be achieved (Appendix B3). However, asion exchange provides no real side benefits, that is, it does not efficiently removeany of the organic fractions in conjunction with metals removal, it should not beretained for further consideration unless secondary or tertiary treatment is requiredfor removal of specific metals not effectively removed by other processes (e.g.,manganese, which occurs above AWQS).

3.5 Reverse Osmosis

3.5.1 Description

Reverse Osmosis is a process whereby the waste stream flows past a membranewhile the solvent, such as water, is pulled through the membrane's pores and theremaining solutes, such as organic or inorganic components, do not pass through,but become more and more concentrated on the influent side of the membrane.

Further, in normal osmotic processes, solvent will flow across a semi-permeablemembrane from a dilute concentration to a more concentrated solution untilequilibrium is reached. The application of high pressure to the concentrated sidewill cause this process to reverse. This results in solvent flow away from theconcentrated solution, leaving an even higher concentration of solute. The semi-permeable membrane can be flat or tubular, but regardless of its shape it acts like

Golder Associates

AR303906

April 1993 -23- 923-6053

a filter due to the pressure driving force. In application the waste stream flows

past the membrane while the solvent, such as water, is pulled through themembrane's pores and the remaining solutes such as organic or inorganiccomponents do not pass through, but become more and more concentrated on theinfluent side of the membrane.

For an efficient reverse osmosis process, the chemical and physical properties ofthe serni-permeable membrane must be compatible with the waste stream's

chemical and physical characteristics. In basic wastewater conditions in excess ofpH 9, the reverse osmosis membranes will hydrolyze and dissolve in a matter of

hours. Other factors which affect the useful life of reverse osmosis membranes arecompaction due to excessive pressure (above 500 psig), membrane fouling, bacterial

degradation, and precipitate formation at the membrane surface (Patterson, 1985).Suspended solids and some organics will clog the membrane material. Low-solubility salts may precipitate onto the membrane surface. Because of theconcentrations of organics, dissolved solids, and suspended solids expected in thegroundwater and leachate at the Site, pretreatment would be required to enableits use.


Review of the RREL database information indicates that reverse osmosis has beenused for removal of VOC from groundwater and leachate from Superfund sites(Appendix A2). Removal efficiencies are often around 90 percent for a wide rangeof influent concentrations. No references are cited for the use of reverse osmosisin the treatment of SVOCs.

Removal efficiencies for metals quoted in references from the database usingreverse osmosis is generally high to very high. In particular, removal efficiencyfor metals such as arsenic, chromium, copper and magnesium in industrialwastewater are generally above 90 percent. In addition, the six references cited for

Golder Associates fiR3039Q7

April 1993 -24- 923-6053

iron removal indicate removal efficiencies varying from 56 to greater than 90percent using reverse osmosis.

Apparently, only one reference is cited in the database for removal of pesticidesusing reverse osmosis. This reference (Appendix A4 - Ref 2E) reports a removalefficiency of greater than 96.6 percent for heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, endrin,and dieldrin occurring in hazardous leachate with an influent concentration rangeof 0-100 ug/L.


Reverse osmosis was reported as effective in removing COD and dissolved solidsfrom leachates; however, membrane fouling by suspended solids, colloidalmaterial, and iron hydroxides was a problem (Chian and DeWalle, 1976). Thus,reverse osmosis is perhaps most effective as a tertiary treatment step for removalof residual COD and dissolved solids. Chain and DeWalle also note thatmembrane efficiency is sensitive to influence from high pH.

3.5.4 Effectiveness

A summary of the treatability information for reverse osmosis is provided inAppendix B4. Although the evaluation discussed herein indicates that reverseosmosis is an effective process and may be applicable for metals, SVOCs, andpesticides removal, the concentrations of dissolved and suspended solids in thegroundwater and leachate may require pre-treatment.

It is suggested that reverse osmosis be retained as a technology to be furtherevaluated, particularly should a secondary removal phase for metals be requiredto meet AWQS.

Golder Associates

AR303908

April 1993 -25- 923-6053

3.6 Precipitation and Coagulation

3.6.1 Description

Chemical precipitation is a pH adjustment process. To achieve precipitation, acidor base .is added to a solution to adj ust the pH to a point where the constituentsto be removed have their lowest solubility. Chemical precipitation facilitates theremoval of dissolved metals from aqueous wastes.

Chemical coagulation occurs when floe-forming chemicals are added to water todestabilize suspended or colloidal solids. Ordinarily, colloidal material will notsettle out, because the particles have negative surface charges and thereby repelother particles. In this stable condition, the particles cannot collide to form larger

particles, called floes, which would settle out (generally due to gravity). By addingcoagulants, the negative forces can be neutralized so that the particles becomeunstable, collide, and then settle. Aluminum, iron salts, and cationic polymers arecommon coagulants.

The efficiency with which certain inorganic ions are removed depends on the pHof the water, the type and dose of the coagulant and the initial concentration ofthe contaminant (Driscoll, 1986). One of the most important variables is pH,because the solubility limits for many substances such as metal hydroxides andcarbonates are typically pH-dependent. The valence of the contaminant is alsoimportant; for example, it is much easier to remove the oxidized state of arsenic(As*5) which is insoluble than the reduced state (As+3) which is soluble:

According to Nyer (1992), pH adjustment is used to remove heavy metals fromgroundwater. The pH will normally have to be raised above 7 to remove themetals. For metals precipitation, lime or caustic (sodium hydroxide, NaOH) isused to reach the required pH ranges. Not all metals will precipitate upon anincrease in pH. For example, iron in the ferrous state and chromium in the

Golder Associates

AR3Q39Q9

April 1993 -26- 923-6053

hexavalent state will not precipitate at high pH ranges. Arsenic is anotherinorganic compound that will not precipitate by,a simple increase in pH. All ofthese metals require chemical additives before they can be precipitated.

Other ways to remove metals from solution is to precipitate them as a sulfideprecipitate as opposed to a hydroxide precipitate. The solubility is still dependenton the pH, but in general, a metal sulfide is less soluble than a metal hydroxide.Since the solubility is less, they will precipitate out of the water resulting in thewater effluent concentration of the metal being less (Nyer, 1992).

The addition of sodium or calcium hypochlorite could also be utilized to oxidizeiron from the ferrous state to the ferric state (Nyer, 1992). A concern with usingthese chemicals is that chlorine must be introduced into the waste stream andthere is the potential to form more chlorinated organic compounds. Hydrogenperoxide can also be used as a chemical oxidant for iron (Nyer, 1992).


Information provided in the RREL database on the use of chemical precipitationfor VOC removal is scant since such processes have low removal efficiencies forVOCs.. The information indicates that removal efficiencies range from around 18to 34 percent (Appendix A2). However, if filtration is added to the process thenremoval efficiency can perhaps be improved to around 60 percent (RREL Ref STB).

The only reference cited for the use of chemical precipitation for the removal ofSVOCs (RREL Ref 245B) in Superfund wastewater, reported zero removalefficiency (Appendix A3).

The only reference cited in the database for pesticide treatment reports a removalefficiency of greater than 64 percent for Lindane (gamma-BHC) in domesticwastewater with an influent concentration of 0-100 ug/L (Appendix A4, Ref 1682B).

Golder Associates AR3039IO

April 1993 -27- - 923-6053

The information in the RREL database (Appendix A5) indicates a wide range inremoval efficiency for metals using chemical precipitation, which is dependent on

• | ,both the influent concentration and the metal. Removal efficiencies for iron andzinc are generally at less than 50 percent and 11 to 40 percent, respectively.Higher removal efficiencies have been obtained for zinc at higher influentconcentrations. Removal efficiencies for other metals present at low concentrationsin industrial wastewater and Superfund wastewater is generally moderate. Forexample, for chromium and copper, removal efficiency is reported in the range of30 to 90 percent and for lead and magnesium, 40 to 70 percent.


Chemical precipitation and coagulation experiments have been fairly successful inremoving iron, color, and suspended solids in leachate. Ho, et al., (1974) havedemonstrated that precipitation with lime is effective in the removal of iron andother multivalent ions, color, suspended solids, and COD. BOD concentrations,however, are apparently unaffected. Iron precipitation by lime is particularlypronounced, as nearly 100 percent removal is consistently reported at limeconcentrations over 300 mg/L. Precipitation by sodium sulfide is reported by Ho,et al., (1974). Iron removal occurred only at very high chemical doses (1000 mg/L),and its effects on other constituents was negligible. Sulfides are apparently not aspromising for leachate cation removal as lime.

Coagulation with alum or ferric chloride is reported by Ho, et al., (1974). Althoughsome removal of iron and color was demonstrated, both coagulants were foundto be of limited value in removing COD, chloride, hardness, and total solids.Results were highly p'H dependent, and chemical dosages were high, resulting inlarge amounts of solids production.

Golder Associates

AR30391I

April 1993 -28- 923-6053

3.6.4 Effectiveness

A summary of the treatability information for chemical precipitation andcoagulation is provided in Appendix B5. This, plus the information discussedabove, indicates that chemical precipitation and coagulation is used primarily formetals removal and would be considered as a primary treatment process for thewaste stream at the Site. In addition, of consideration with the use of thistechnology is the need to handle, dispose, and manage any metals sludge inaccordance with appropriate regulations as discussed in Section 5.0. Thistechnology should be retained for further evaluation.

3.7 Biological Treatment

3.7.1 Description

Biological treatment of organics are catabolized (broken down into simplersubstances) by microorganisms using two general mechanisms. These are aerobicrespiration and anaerobic respiration. In general, aerobic degradation processesare more often used for biodegradation because the degradation process is morecomplete, and problematic end products (methane, hydrogen sulfide) are notproduced. However, anaerobic degradation is important for dehalogenation.

All microorganisms require adequate levels of inorganic and organic nutrients,growth factors, water, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and sufficient biological space forsurvival and growth. Factors that influence microbial biodegradation rates includemicrobial inhibition by chemicals in the waste to be treated, the number andphysiological state of the organisms as a function of available nutrients, theseasonal state of microbial development, predators, pH, and temperature.

All anaerobic biological treatment processes achieve the reduction of organicmatter, in an oxygen-free environment, to methane and carbon dioxide. This isaccomplished by using cultures of bacteria which include facultative and obligate

Golder Associates

April 1993 -29- 923-6053

anaerobes. Microorganisms referred to as methanogenic consortia are found inanaerobic sediments or sewage sludge digesters. These organisms play animportant role in reductive dehalogenation reactions, nitrosamine degradation,reduction of epoxides to olefins, reduction of nitro groups, and ring fission ofaromatic structures.

Although organic priority pollutants are generally considered to be toxic, theextent of toxicity is a function of both the relative toxicity of the individualcompounds and of the absolute concentration (exposure level). The introductionof a waste stream containing one or more organic priority pollutants into eitheran aerobic or an anaerobic biological treatment process can yield any one orcombination of the following types of responses (Patterson, 1985).

Inhibition - the organic compound interferes with the proper functioningof the biological process, and overall treatment efficiency deteriorates.

Nonbiodegradability - the organic compound does not effect the treatmentefficiency, but is recalcitrant and passes substantially unchanged throughthe treatment system.

Chemical Conversion - the biological process transforms the organiccompound into a different chemical which no longer responds to thespecific analytical test procedure.

Biodegradation - the organic compound is mineralized into oxidized formssuch as carbon dioxide and water,-and cellular mass.

Accimilation-Degradation - initial introduction of the organic compounddoes not show degradation but continued exposure causes a populationshift or adaptation which eventually results in degradation of the toxicant.

Sorption - the organic compound is removed from the waste stream bysorption onto soil particles, primary sludge, or mixed liquor particles,without biodegradation occurring.

In real systems it is difficult to distinguish the relative influence of the last fourlisted types of responses, since each results in the disappearance of .the subject

' flGolder Associates

April 1993 -30- 923-6053

compound from the soluble phase of the wastewater. An additional mechanismfor the disappearance of a priority pollutant during biological treatment isvolatilization. This mechanism can predominate over others for many of thevolatile organic priority pollutants (Pellizzari, 1982).


RREL database information indicates that biological treatment is mostappropriately used for removal of aromatic volatiles, e.g., benzene (rather thanhalogenated aliphatic compounds). For processes such as activated sludge,removal efficiencies for benzene and chlorobenzene range from 65 to greater than80 percent (Appendix A2).

Removal efficiencies for the SVOC, bis(2-chloroethyl)ether, from industrialwastewater range from 73 to nearly 100 percent for a range of influentconcentrations.

Biological treatment, for example activated sludge, can also treat for metalsremoval. However, removal efficiencies are generally low to moderate. A scan ofthe RREL database information reveals generally low to moderate removalefficiencies depending on the metal and the influent concentrations. For example,for a wide variety of metals, removal efficiency ranges from 20 to 90 percent forboth industrial and Superfund wastewater, but can be as low as 0 to 40 percent formetals like lead, magnesium, and zinc (Appendix A5).

Information provided in the database indicates that pesticides treatment usingactivated sludge provides removal efficiencies in the range of 40 to 80 percentwhen applied to domestic wastewater. There are apparently no references for

industrial wastewater, Superfund wastewater, or hazardous leachate treatmentusing biological technologies.

Golder Assoclatj R 3 Q 3 9 I

April 1993 -31- 923-6053


Various researchers have investigated the potential of aerobic and anaerobicprocesses for the stabilization of leachate. The primary goal of these approachesis to reduce high BOD and COD concentrations in leachate. A basic problem in

biological treatment is that the leachate metals and other contaminants may exerttoxic effects on the biological treatment culture.

Laboratory scale research has demonstrated that activated sludge processes caneffectively remove organic matter and metals from leachate (Boyle and Ham, 1974).Removal of 90 to 99 percent of the leachate BOD and COD and some metalremoval was reported. The authors noted that due to the operationalcharacteristics required, a large amount of organic matter in leachate is not readilyoxidize, and requires extensive biological activity for stabilization. The longtreatment times indicate that extensive aeration energy requirements will berequired for aerobic treatment of leachate.

Various operational problems may be of concern during aerobic treatment,including foaming, nutrient deficiencies, and toxic inhibition. Uloth and Mavinic(1977) indicated that excessive aeration in conjunction with high concentrations ofmetals contributed to foaming, and that the mechanical mixing independent ofaeration and anti-foaming admixtures, could help alleviate this problem. Palit andQasim (1977) indicated that leachate stabilization could be hampered by nutrientdeficiencies, and that the addition of nutrients may be necessary in some cases.The toxic effects of metals and other constituents appear to inhibit biologicalremoval of oxygen demanding material, as indicated by the increased timerequired for biostabilization (Uloth and Mavinic, 1977).

Metals removed from leachate during aerobic treatment was reported by Ulothand Mavinic (1977). Following biological detention time of 10 days, activatedsludge digester effluents showed less than 10 mg/L of iron, dropping from an

Golder Associates _ _AR3039I5

April 1993 -32- 923-6053

original concentration in raw leachate of 240 mg/L. More than 95 percent of themixed liquor aluminum, cadmium, calcium, chromium, manganese, and zinc werealso removed by the settling biological floe. An average of 85 percent of the leadand 76 percent of the nickel was associated with the sludge solids. Between 49percent and 69 percent of the mixed liquor magnesium was removed by settling.The authors noted that the percentage removal for all metals is generally higherthan that observed by other researchers for activated sludge processes.

Anaerobic treatment of leachate has been effective in reducing organic loads.Continuous culture lab-scale reactors have demonstrated 90 to 99 percent removalwhich is comparable to that achieved by aerobic treatment (Boyle and Ham, 1974;Pohland, 1975). Similar removal efficiency is reported by Chian and DeWalle(1976) using a lab-scale anaerobic filter.

A study by Kennedy, et al. (1988) looked at using an anaerobic upflow blanketfilter (UBF) and a down flow stationary film (DSF) reactor to anaerobically treatlandfill leachate. They showed that both the DSF and the UBF reactors both cantreat landfill leachate at high organic loading rates and shorts hydraulic retentiontimes. A 93 percent COD removal rate can be obtained in either type reactor withan organic loading rate of about 14.5 g COD/m3-d and a hydraulic retention timeof 1.5 days. Because the specific substrate loadings were relatively low, either unitcould handle a higher organic loading rate at a lower hydraulic retention time.When operated at an optimum biomass concentration a small UBF could handlean organic loading rate up to 42 kg/m3-d while maintaining a COD removal rateof 88 percent or higher (at a 10 hour hydraulic retention time). Based on previous

work, it is not likely that a DSF unit could obtain a high COD removal efficiencyat a high organic loading rate without at least 12 hours of hydraulic detentiontime. Since the biomass concentration in the DSF unit is greatly determined bythe surface area to volume ratio of the media, higher biomass concentrations cangenerally be obtained in the UBF process. The authors also noted that lime

t

Golder Associates

AR303916

April 1993 -33- 923-6053

pretreatment for heavy metal removal caused a precipitate to form in the test unitsthat resulted in pumping and clogging problems. No substrate inhibition wasobserved and phosphate was added to eliminate a phosphorus deficiency.

3.7.4 Effectiveness

A review of the information above, and that summarized in Appendix B6,

indicates that the use of biological treatment for removal of aromatic VOCs (e.g.,benzene) and SVOCs would be applicable at the site. Removal efficiencies for

these compounds would be expected to be of the order of 70 to greater than 90percent

The information also indicates that biological treatment would probably providelow to moderate removal levels of metals, depending on the metal and influentconcentration. Some removal of pesticides would also be expected.

However, whilst this information suggests that moderate (to perhaps high)removal efficiencies could be expected for many of the compounds at the Site, the

BOD of the waste stream will likely be too low to sustain either an aerobic oranaerobic treatment system. Therefore, biological treatment is not consideredapplicable to the waste stream and should not be retained for furtherconsideration.

3.8 Chemical Oxidation (including UVAVHpa)

3.8.1 Description

Oxidation processes involve the exchange of electrons between chemical speciesand effect a change in the oxidation (valence) state of the species involved.Specifically, oxidation processes are referred to as oxidation-reduction (redox)reactions because one of the species involved gains electrons (reduced valencestate-reduction) and another loses electrons (increased valence state-oxidation).

Golder AssociatesRR3039I7

April 1993 -34- 923-6053

This exchange of electrons may destroy organic compounds by breaking bondsand creating new, smaller compounds.

Three chemical oxidants have been widely used in industrial and groundwatertreatment processes: chlorine, ozone, and hydrogen peroxide (Nyer, 1992). Inaddition, oxygen has been used for simple oxidation situations, i.e., iron removal.Ultraviolet radiation has been used to enhance the destructive power of ozone andhydrogen peroxide. Chemical oxidation using hypochlorite is excluded fromfurther discussion because of its potential for formation of additional halogenatedcompounds.

Ozone has properties which reduce its effectiveness as an oxidant for wastewatertreatment. Ozone is so reactive that it will dissipate rapidly after contact withwater, either by reacting with the impurities in the water or by spontaneousdecomposition. Ozone decomposition is a complex chain-reaction process whichoccurs when ozone comes in contact with organic and inorganic molecules, thenstrips electrons, thus permitting the ozone to assume more stable forms such aselemental oxygen, hydroxide molecules, and water. One ozone decompositionintermediate is the hydroxyl radical (HO), one of the most powerful oxidizingagents known. The HO radical is capable of oxidizing almost any organiccompound. The production of HO radicals is greatly increased when ozone orhydrogen peroxide is used in the presence of ultraviolet (UV) radiation. The UVradiation decomposes both ozone and hydrogen peroxide into HO radicals.


The information in the RREL database for chemical oxidation using combinationsof either UV, ozone or hydrogen peroxide indicate removal efficiencies of VOCsare generally greater than 90 percent, although some lower efficiencies are noted(Appendix A2).

Golder Associates

AR3039I8

April 1993 .35. j_______;_________________;_______________'_______=—————————————————————————;——-^

,The only reference (Appendix A3) cited for treatment of tl!

chloroethyl)ether using chemical oxidation (with ozone) rep<efficiency of greater than 99.7 percent for an influent concentratHowever, it should be noted that this was a batch process instlflow and that the influent concentration was significantly'expected in the combined influent stream for the Site.

Chemical oxidation is not normally applicable for removal of metals from a wastestream although some removal may occur through oxidation of the metals to theirinsoluble form and subsequent precipitation. For example, for iron, whenchemical oxidation was' used in conjunction with precipitation, a removalefficiency of greater than 90 percent was reported (Appendix A5, Ref 37E).

Chemical oxidation is not cited in the RREL references scanned as a treatment forremoval of pesticides.


Dichlorobenzene and other halogenated organics have been successfully treatedby UV/ozonation (Topudurti, 1991). The authors also report removal of TCE andPCE from 20 parts per million (ppm) to less than 5 ppb - a removal efficiency of75 percent. Bench-scale tests on an influent PCE concentration of 100 ppb resultedin 95 percent removal (Peyton, 1982).

EPA's Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program has evaluatedUV/Oxidation processes and has published positive results about it (Nyer, 1992).1,1-Dichloroethene at a concentration of 263 ppb was removed to non-detectablelevels in 25 minutes using a UV dose of 160 W/L-min and 7 pprri of hydrogenperoxide at a pH of 7.5 (Roy, 1990). Trans-l,2-dichloroethene was reduced at pH7.1 from 198 ppb to non-detectable levels using a UV dose of 160 W/L-min , ahydrogen peroxide dose of 10 mg/L-min., and a 4 minute contact time (Roy, 1990).

Golder Associates

AR3039I9

-36- 923-6053

iichloroethane was removed to non-detectable levels from an initial'concentration of 16.9 ppm with a UV/peroxidation pilot plant (Topudurti, et al.,

i1991). Groundwater contaminated with vinyl chloride at 155 ppm was treatedwith a UV dose of 590 W/L and a hydrogen peroxide dose of 300/L-min at pH 7.6for 30 minutes, resulting in an effluent concentration of 4.4 ppb and a removalefficiency of greater than 99 percent (Roy, 1990).

Benzene and 1,2-dichlorobenzene are among the other organics reported to besuccessfully treated with UV/peroxidation (Topudurti, 1991). Phthalates arereportedly degradable via UV/peroxidation and pesticide removal efficiency isunknown but considered probable (Topudurti, 1991). Topudurti (1991) concludedthat UV/peroxidation is most efficient for waste streams having a pH of less than7, negligible color and turbidity, and suspended solids levels of under 20 mg/L.

Chain and DeWalle (1977) reported that ozonation of leachate oxidizes highermolecular weight matter more efficiently than the lower weight materials, andworks best with an alkaline pH. The authors found only a 48 percent removal ofaerated lagoon effluent TOC after a 3 hour ozone treatment period. Ho, et al.(1974) reported a 37 percent COD removal following a 4 hour ozonation treatment.These researchers concluded that the use of chemical oxidants was less effectivethan activated carbon in removing organic matter from stabilized leachate.

3.8.4 Effectiveness

Chemical oxidation, particularly combined UV/peroxidation/ozone, is consideredto be effective in the destruction and consequently, removal of VOCs, SVOCs, andpesticides, and thus is considered applicable to the treatment of these compoundsat the site and should be retained for detailed evaluation through the FS.

For site specific VOCs such as chlorobenzene, 1,1-dichloroethane, trichloroethene,benzene, and vinyl chloride, etc., high removal efficiencies above 85 percent could

Golder Associates

AR30392Q

April 1993 . -37- 923-6053

probably be expected (Appendix A2 and Appendix B7). For the SVOC, bis-2(chloroethyl)ether, removal efficiencies may also(exceed 90 percent.

Some metals removal may occur incidentally to the removal of organiccompounds. Only moderate removal levels would be anticipated.

Worthy of consideration with the use of chemical oxidation is that generally thelower the level of.contaminants in the influent stream, the lower the removalefficiency.

Golder Associates _ .AR30392I

April 1993 -38- 923-6053

4.0 REVIEW OF VENDOR INFORMATION

As indicated Section 3.2 of the TSWP, the USEPA's VISITT database was scannedto provide a list of vendors which market innovative technologies for thetreatment of contaminated groundwater. The vendors were contacted andprovided such information as:

• treatment plant influent rates;

• type of waste stream (groundwater and leachate), the contaminantsand their concentrations;

• allowable concentrations in the effluent; and

• the approximate location of the Site.

and were requested to provide information on technologies, package plants, ortreatment facilities marketed by them such as:

• the expected range of contaminants in treatment plant influent;

• the removal efficiency of the plants for those contaminants;

• treatment rates;

• waste stream generated by their process;

• literature documentation of their process performance;

• operation and maintenance schedule for the process plants; and

• costs.

Unfortunately, the response from vendors was generally poor. Of the 10 responsesreceived, 6 were for processes applicable to treatment of soils, 3 related totreatment of wastes not applicable to this Site, and only 1 directly related to

treatment of leachate impacted groundwater. This process is discussed below.

Golder Associates

AR303922

April 1993 -39- 923-6053

4.1 2'impro Passavant Environmental Systems, Inc. (PACT System)

4.1.1 Description of Groundwater Treatment System

The PACT system is a continuous flow, single-stage aerobic unit. Groundwater,

collected through a system of extraction wells, flows into the system equalizationtank arid then passes to the aeration basin. Powdered activated carbon isintroduced to the activated sludge biomass, and physical adsorption as well asbiological treatment take place in a single process step. Following aeration, thewater passes to a circular clarifier, where the carbon and biomass settle out.Settled solids are returned to the aeration tank on a continuous basis to maintainthe desired concentration of carbon and biological solids. A portion is wasted

daily from the system and dewatered to a compact cake in a small filter press.The proper carbon inventory in the system is maintained by addition of virgincarbon as needed.

4.1.2 Operational Experience

The PACT system has been used as a groundwater treatment system at acontaminated site in New England. The site of a former tank farm on theproperty was found to be contaminated with VOCs and had high ironconcentrations (135 ppm). Initial pilot plant testing was preformed using a UVoxidation process, two submerged biofilm systems, and PACT. Results indicatedthat both the UV and biological processes would require a pre-treatment step foriron removal before they would operate effectively and efficiently. The PACTsystem, on the other hand, performed well without pre-treatment for iron andmanganese removal. The VOCs were removed to below method detection limits,soluble iron was removed by 99.5 percent, and soluble manganese by about 40percent. Further, VOC stripping to the atmosphere, common in activated sludgesystem off gas, was negligible. Another result was that the sludge waste producedby this PACT system has been determined to be nonhazardous by TCLP analysis.

Golder Associates

April 1993 -40- 923-6053

The PACT system has also been shown to be effective for the treatment of landfillleachate. At a landfill facility in New Hampshire, a anaerobic-aerobic PACTsystem achieves 95-96 percent COD removal from leachate. The system isdesigned for a capacity of 40,000 gpd. First, chemical precipitation removes metalsfrom the leachate. This step in the treatment includes a bulk chemical handlingsystem and an LME inclined plate separator. Next, the leachate passes to the two-stage PACT system, where powdered activated carbon combines with biologicaltreatment in both the anaerobic and aerobic steps.

The anaerobic reactor has biological treatment occurring in the lower, suspendedgrowth zone, and polishing and liquid-solid separation in the upper, or fixed-filmzone. The presence of the carbon enhances biological activity, and increasessystem stability against toxics. After leachate has been treated anaerobically, itpasses to a circular, "nested" aeration-clarification tank. Here, organics in theleachate are contacted with the carbon-activated sludge mixed liquor.

The treated leachate meets stringent pre-treatment standards before discharge tothe municipal sewer system. Spent carbon and waste biomass from the system aredewatered in a filter press and the resultant cake is subsequently landfilled. Gasproduced in the reactor is piped to a gas recovery plant where it is used alongwith landfill gas to power generators to produce electrical power.

4.1.3 Applicability to the Site's Waste Stream

The PACT system has been shown to be an effective treatment process forcontaminated groundwater and landfill leachate. The constituents in the Site'swaste stream would be removed efficiently by physical adsorption to thepowdered activated carbon, however, biological activity may have only reducedeffectiveness due to the low BOD of the waste stream. With this in mind, PACTshould be considered further as an alternative viable treatment of the waste streamat the Site.

Colder Assoc,atM ftR30392U

April 1993 -41- 923-6053

4.2 Other Information

Information obtained from the RREL database (Reference 92D) stated that thefollowing processes were evaluated for groundwater treatment at the LorentzBarrel & Drum Superfund Site in San Jose, California.

The Ultrox UV/oxidation process (Ultrox International, Inc.), which was a batchreactor pilot-plant, had removal efficiencies of VOCs that were greater than 96percent The CAV-OX process (The Water Group), which was a continuous-flowpilot-plant, had removal efficiencies of VOCs that were greater than 98 percent.The RAYOX process (Solarchem Environmental System), also a continuous-flowpilot-plant, had VOC removal efficiencies greater than 97 percent. The Perox-Pufeprocess (Peroxidation System, Inc.), which was a batch reactor pilot-plant, hadVOC removal efficiencies greater than 96 percent.

Golder Associates

•AR303925

April 1993 -42- 923-6053

5.0 REGULATORY AND PERMIT ISSUES

Regulations and permit issues relevant to the managing and disposal of treatmenteffluent and residuals, which may ultimately be applicable to the waste stream(s)at the Site are summarized in Table 3.

This list was compiled from a review of Federal and Commonwealth ofPennsylvania regulations and includes such statutes as the Clean Water Act, 25 PACode and EPA Regulations on National Emissions Standards for Hazardous AirPollutants. This information indicates, various permits may need to be obtainedand/or standards met prior to and during operation of any treatment plant,handling, disposal, and management of any generated sludges or air emissionsand discharge of any effluent from the Site.

Golder Associates

April 1993 -43- 923-6053

6.0 SUMMARY

This TSER provides a discussion of the technical basis for evaluating processes

most likely to be applicable to the treatment of groundwater and leachate at theSite. This included development of a conceptual groundwater extraction system,

estimation of groundwater extraction rates, estimation of leachate generation rates,and subsequently a determination of likely combined groundwater and leachateinfluent quality and quantity.

In addition, various discharge options (dictated and/or constrained by factors suchas constituent concentrations, volume and potential receptors), and relevantregulatory issues were considered and utilized to assess the level of treatment

required.

Two discharge options are considered available for the waste stream effluent fromthe Site. These options are treatment and discharge to Conoy Creek andpretreatment and discharge via the Elizabethtown POTW. Discharge effluentcriteria for both options are dictated by 25 PA Chapter 93 and 25 PA Chapter 97.

Final discharge limits to Conoy Creek will be promulgated with a NPDES permit.

Assessment of the likely combined groundwater and leachate influent quality withrespect to the AWQS indicates that treatment for VOCs removal and metalsremoval (manganese only) will be required at the Site. While treatment of SVOCsand pesticides does not appear to be necessary to meet the anticipated NPDESlimits, technologies applicable to the treatment of such compounds were evaluatedthrough the literature review in this study.

The results of the evaluation are summarized in Table 4. Chemical precipitationis identified as a primary treatment method capable of providing the requiredremoval efficiencies for metals. Reverse Osmosis is considered an effective processfor metals removal and may also be effective in removing some organic

Golder Associates AR3Q3927

April 1993 . -44- 923-6053

compounds, particularly if used as a secondary treatment. Both technologiesshould be retained for detailed evaluation through the FS.

The evaluation indicates that the following technologies are applicable to theremoval of VOCs at the Site to meet AWQS. These should form the basis ofdetailed evaluation through the FS:

• Air Stripping;

• Granular Activated Carbon; and

• Chemical Oxidation.

The inclusion of the first two treatments is consistent with the information on BATprovided by PADER (Reference 4) and in the Federal Primary Drinking WaterRegulations (40 CFR §142).

As it is difficult to find information on removal efficiencies of technologies forinfluent with extremely low concentrations of pesticides and SVOCs (i.e., in thelow and subparts per trillion and per billion range respectively), it is even moredifficult to analyze for their presence using methodologies (and associated MDLs)

under the AWQS which dictate the level of treatment required for thesecompounds. With this in mind, the most practical treatment of these compounds'(at these extremely low levels) would be to implement the BAT, that is, granular

activated carbon (Table 5).

For the treatment of the waste stream at this Site, this would not involve theimplementation of an additional technology as the use of granular activatedcarbon has already been identified as a process capable of providing the requiredremoval efficiencies for VOCs that should be considered and evaluated throughthe FS.

Golder Associates

RR303928

April 1993 . -45- 923-6053

7.0 REFERENCES

1. Golder Associates Inc., November 1992, "Elizabethtown Landfill, RemedialInvestigation/Feasibility Study, Candidate Technologies Memorandum".

2. Golder Associates Inc., February 1993, "Elizabethtown Landfill, RemedialInvestigation/Feasibility Study, Treatability Studies Work Plan".

3. Borough of Elizabethtown, December 1992, "Ordinance GoverningAdmission of Industrial Wastes into the Sewage System".

4. PADER, June 1989, "Technical Guidance for NPDES Permitting of LandfillLeachate Discharges".

5. USEPA, "Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory" (RREL) TreatabilityDatabase, Version 4.0.

6. USEPA, June 1992, Information System for Innovative TreatmentTechnologies (VISITT - Version 1.0) EPA 542-R-92-001.

7. Todd, D.K. (1959), "Ground Water Hydrology." John Wiley & Sons, Inc.New York and London.

Golder Associates

AR303929

April 1993 -46- 923-6053

8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY•

1. Boyle, W.C., R.K. Ham, "Biological Treatability of Landfill Leachate", JournalWater Pollution Control Federation, 46(5), 1974.

2. Byers, W.D., and C.M. Morton, 1985. Removing VOC from Ground Water;Pilot, Scale-up and Operating Experience, Env. Progress 4(2):112-118.

3. Chian, E.S. and F.B. DeWalle. 1976. Sanitary Landfill Leachates and TheirTreatments. J. of the Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE,102(EE2):215-239.

4. Driscoll, F.G. (198) "Groundwater and Wells", Second Edition, JohnsonFiltration Systems, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota.

5. Farquahar, Grahame, at the August 1988 Conference on Sanitary LandfillDesign, Albany, New York.

6. Gross, R.L., and S.G. Termaath, 1985. Packed tower aeratio stripstrichloroethylene from groundwater. Env. Progress 4(2): 119-124.

7. Hand, D.W., J.C. Crittenden, J.L. Gekin, and B.W. Lykins, Jr., 1986. Designand evaluation of an air-stripping tower for removing VOCs fromgroundwater. J AWWA 78(9):87-9.

8. Ho, S.W.C. Boyle, R.K. Ham, "Chemical Treatment of Leachate fromSanitary Landfills", J. WPCF, 46(7), 1974.

9. .Kennedy, K.J., M.F. Hamora, S.G. Guiot, "Anaerobic Treatment of LeachateUsing Fixed Film and Sludge Bed Systems", Journal WPCF, Vol. 60, No. 9,Sept. 1988.

10. Lu, J.C.S.; B.' Eichenberger, and R.J. Stearns (1985), "Leachate fromMunicipal Landfills - Production and Management", Noves Publications,Park Ridge, NJ.

11. Mclntyre, D.C. (1993). The PACT Process Treatment Experience withIndustrial Waste. Preprint extended abstract presented to the Division ofEnvironmental Chemistry - American Chemical Society, Denver, CO.

12. Mclntyre, G.T., J.K. Cable, and W.D. Byers. 1987. Cost and performance ofair stripping for VOC removal, in Proc 1987. Specialty Conference, ASCEEnvironmental Engineering Division, Orlando, Florida. 1987. pp. 228-235.

Golder AssociatesAR3Q3930

April 1993 -47- 923-6053

13. Nyler, E.K. (1992) "Groundwater Treatment Technology", second edition.Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.

14. Palit, T., and S.R. Qasim. 1977. Biological'Treatment Kinetics of LandfillLeachate. Journal of the Env. Eng., Div. ASCE, 103(EE2):353-366.

15.. Patterson, J.W. (1985) "Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technology",Second Edition. Butterworths, Stoneham, MA.

16. Pellizzari, E. "Volatile Organics in Aeration Gases at Municipal TreatmentPlants," USEPA 600/S2-82-056 (August 1982).

17. Pohland, F.G. 1974. Sanitary Landfill Stabilization with Leachate Recycleand Residual Treatment. EPA-600/2-75-043. U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 105 pp.

18. Pope, J.L. and R.A. Osantowski. 1987. Case history - use of a mobileadvanced water treatment system to treat groundwater contaminated withvolatile organic compounds, in Proc. 41st Industrial Waste Conference,Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 1986. pp. 408-414.

19. Roy, K.A. (1990). UV-Oxidation Technology. Hazmat World, pp. 35-39.

20. Staszak, CN, J.H. Kyles, K.C. Malinowski, and F.T. Johnson 1987. Packed-column air stripping of VOC from hazardous wastes, in Proc. 1987.Specialty Conference, ASCE, Environmental Engineering Division, Orlando,Florida, 1987. pp. 22-29.

21. Stover, E.L., M.M. Gates, and R. Gonzales. 1986. Treatment and removal ofdissolved organics and inorganics in a contaminated groundwater - a case•study, in Proc. Petroleum hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals inGroundwater: Prevention, Detection, and Restoration, NWWA/API,Houston, Texas, 1986. pp 689-708.

22. Sullivan, K. and F. Lenzo, 1989. Groundwater treatment techniques - Anoverview of the state-of-the-art in America. "First US/USSR Conference onHydrogeology", Moscow (NWWA). July 3-5, 1989.

23. Topudurti, K.V. (1991). "The Applicability of UV/Oxidation Technologies toTreat Contaminated Groundwater". USEPA 600-D-91-278.

24. Uloth, V.C. and D.S. Mavinec. 1977. Aerobic Treatment of a High StrengthLeachate. Journal of the Env. Eng. Div. ASCE, 103(EE4):647-745.

Golder AssociatesAR30393I

April 1993 -48- 923-6053

25. Verschueren, K. "Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals"(New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1983).

Golder Associates

AR303932

n"5

1£

iJi

cc1>£UJ5i

d

|o

iCO

1tu

§£

5i_:CiCL

1HraN03

COf~ycc1ib.j§

__Iiz8JZ35

\

i£

fcfS

5COnz

3:Sfl.

-jp-J.y

1

Ii

\

so-1f

i"•"

*s_•nt=

an He

alth

FaI

u

7

•ah.

62asH

CDCO

1!ri32•n

gO

*

coNsrrruEj \

3

1>

.iz

CO

CO

d

Z

z

COCMo

QZ

S3o

nyl Chloride

>

•5>en

Z

COz

CO

z

z

z

5jin

CO

coin

hloroethane

0

.in<n

Z

COz

CO

z

z

z

CO

o

QZ

So

arbon Disulfide

0

^COCM

COZ

CO

§d

sh*h

1

r20

QZ

SO

1 -Dichloroethene

r~

!nCO

|s.•o-

CO

CO

z

z

z

8CO

'•

sCO

1 -Dichloroethane

T-

S.-•.2COT-

COz

CO

ra

OCO

I

OinCO

f1o£en

CM

o>

COCCO

s-1,2-Dichloroeth

o

^00CM

CO

CO

•ti-es

§in*~

co§CO

'ind.

CM

o>o

2-Dichloroethane

*-

:'

°00co

CO

CO

i§CO

s

en*~

Q

5

r-

1,1-Trichloroetha

"•

•

*en*"

CO

COz

CO

oCM

s

sT"

00d

S*•

richloroethene

"~

*

o

^*

CO

CO

o

5!

h.o^

»~

0*"

8U8ZU8

CD

*,_

*

CO

CO

N.d

inen(O

5

COino

Q

ooino

atrachloroethene

K

CO

CO

CO

CO

1

SCOY—

o

00O)

CM

oocri

COCO

"o

aCO

CO

CO

8gr-T—

COCOCM

CO

?

1

CMenen

hlorobenzene

0

&CJ

N

CO

CO

8

1C*J

§in

COoo

00

QZ

hylbenzene

UJ

*

ct

.£

Z

COz

CO

1in8

CM

COi—O

*QZ

I

p

O

^*

COz

CO

od

o

1

CMd

in

COo

CD

4-Dichlorobenzen

'•

?

MIVOLATILES(U£

IDCO

inT"*

CO

CO

18

CM

end

T™

cnd

0COiTfH

is.in

COz

CO

*

CO3

8Vi

o

fe\„

^

co<N

COc.

§<2-chloroethyl)et

R

COCO

z

CO

d

8

CM

CMd

*

CMd

^Chlorophenol

Ft

nz

CO

CO

11

z

z

Bo

*

Q

Jvlethylphenol

**.

i

^z

CO

CO

11

z

z

COo

in

cod

•/dethylphenol

*•

«

fs.

CM

CO

CO

8

s

?

c§o

CO

Q?

•^-Dimethylpheno

SS

I

CO»•

CO

CO

o

cS

5

5o

CO

rt

aphthal3he

^

i

<z

CO

CO

111

CO

COz

§d

00d

Q

CO

-Methylnaphthalel

CM

I

CD»-

COz

CO

°s

"-

cSo

Q

§o

cenaphthene

**

CM*

CO

COz

3

inS

co

d

QZ

d

0cc

1'c04CM

I

.CM

CO

CO

Z

sCNJ

$

d

Q

<*d

-Nitrophenol

*

enT"

0

CO

d

Z

z

tooo

Q

S0

uorene

LL

CMCM

CO

CO

S

|^

8co

fe

d

•

CM

O7

2~K

2

a

COCO

COz

CO

8COz

CO

o0

CO

Q7

antachlorophenol

a.18

Al?-30-5933

iI

I

EE1

re

11CO5

=!5;

|

1gUJ

_3g

1Q.

5dCu

|

11

COflp

iL«

VtZj^

g

t~

gPiifeJY'z

•S2E

18|

tin*

5'oCu

0_l.91£

afe*

SV

1I^s»/

w

1£

§

w1PX

xfflZ

1o

1S00Pi2

1fe^3CO

1GO

1

g

S,2,COm

1 SEMIVOLATI

incvi

COZ

CO

1cS

1

CM

8d

d

O

CDrawc:£.31fO

inevi

COZ

CO

z

o

.

COd

d

COd

<nra

1 Butylbenzyli

incvi

COZ

CO

z

z

z

COd

QZ

COd

"re

•>

cB

iNv'

1 PESTICIDES

§o

COz

CO

gd

z

z

io

oz

C*3

O

om_c(X

io

COZ

CO

CMOO

z

z

T—

O

I0

QZ

mincc

§o

COz

CO

z

z

z

1o

COT"oo

10

omn"a

§o

COz

COz

so

CM

d

io

oo

10

"aT

|CmEic

io

COz

COz

z

ind

d

8o

COoo

CM

0

a

1LLC£CI1

8O

COz

COz

s*

go

mCM

en8d

8d

ifoo

Q

1 Dieldrin

*

|o

COz

COz

z

^

8d

§d

en

d

Q

LL

CV

Io

COz

CO

-

COT—

d

1d

CM

O

eiO

Ioo

11

0o

CO

CO

n

d

cvi

CO

d

1o

coso

CO

oo

cnc

aamma-Chl ^

ccr

t

3

CO

CO

z

8

in

SCM

OT-

3cv

Alum

inum

T-

co

i

n

ooCO

~

8

tr

9

Arsenic

CM

CO

1

|CM

n

85

N'£>

az

CO

1"JI

a

1

CO

CO

1I

z

z

i

8

Jocvf*

i Calcium

i

CO

13

CO

Si

d

coCO

o

\ Chromium

N-

co

CO

11

i

£

CMCO

coe:

cvco

1

CD

CO

1

I*-

CO

cv

oz

T—

cv

c

\

1*-

CO

CO

11

Z

Z

rr*

8o>

§

> cc

f-

1oin

CMCO

CO

T.

If.

§o

Tc

§

CO

11

z

z

M

ct

ss.

KCMCM

E1cct

)j*

CM

CO

g

"•-

J

Z

g,''

i

sN.CO

Cuacn)Cc

n

M

$

8

Xev

CV

cScv

"<<

!

CO

Ii

Z

z

ff

1

1'

Potassium

i

CO

ii

j

z

\

8

/r

KIM

ETOCO

CM

M

g

in

?

^

inin

fe

CO

(is

p

8

g

CMcv

2

c\

V.

(T'i

o

e

i

914cr

i

i i 1S? nS on

Q

|UJ <22 =!E£CO cr

05 ft oE OO

LU

Q m Z2 i" 01s§P

m 5 o LL< § < LUi- o y Qlsim< ocNl LLI

LU

ij*Occo

1»

iLu

izLUCD

<

_j

|

j£i

ij-ji

i

50Q.'

C

X)N

DJ

Sg£Vt— j^O

c.o1I

1K*--s

*iSs

tiCOLUgZ

jt-'oal

£«j.a3*

^c•gcS

S"5!S

I

i

1£

2

-9}=—

£

XSX

IS

.9S6

1roJ00

CO

2

&3iy

1o

gLU

i0

>.1i

WETCH

Z

CO

COz

COz

CO

az

II

1

i

>.

| Alkalini

z

CO

COz

COz

COz

Qz

COd

en§

ii

.50oE

z

o

oCM1

COz

CO

QZ

in

COCM

in

QOCO

Z

o

COz

COz

CO

oz

COcviCO

8

enCO

§

z

COz

COz

COz

CO

QZ

enen

1

i

CD

[ Chlorid

z

COz

COz

COz

<

CO

az

enS0

enCOd

id

CDT>oLI

z

CO

COz

COz

CO

Qz

i

os

1

$cCO

z

g

COz

COz

CO

az

I0

CMso

CO

so

in0

I

z

CO

COz

COz

CO

az

CO

a

en

Sulfate

z

CO

COz

COz

CO

0z

COso

inCO

CO

o

! Sulfide

z

CO

COz

COz

CO

0z

COCMin

in

COCMin

COg

Z

CO

COz

COz

COz

Qz

CO

CO

COen

O

Z

CO

0cvi

CO

COz

QZ

CO•»V-

CM

COCO

CO

i

Z

14 •*

COz

COz

COz

GZ

inCMd

(2

G

1

i 2 8

5 s *"8 I HfS S" IE£ |75 2 |

_ j- O CO OE o = c oco >> .5 •*S frt rs f COc/j t ra co (

fe 1 P |1 S , 11 «••"'«£s '* ~.§ S 8 -5 = s~ X W M t-i

— I! -oIn |-§lis

•^;CD ~ So)CO

5 2 £ fd 1 « S

IAR303935 I

April 1993 823-C053

TABLE 2 'GUIDE TO AIR STRIPPING OF

VOCs AND OTHER COMPOUNDS

COMPOUND

(02)

(CO2)* Vinyl ChlorideTetrachloromethane (CTC)Tetrachloroethene (PCE)

* Trichloroethene (TCE)

Chloroethane* Toluene* Benzene* 1,1 -Dichloroethane* 1,1,1-Trichloroethane* Chlorobenzene1 ,2 Dichloroethane

1 ,2 Dibromethane (EDB)

1,1,2,2, TetrachloroethaneNaphthalene

Phenanthrene

1 ,2 Dibromo-3 Chloropropane (DBCP)

(NH3)

* bis(2-chloroethyl)ether

Pentachlorophenol

Endrin

Dieldrin

Henry's LawConstant Ratio (1)

H/HTCE10010

2.4

10.950.5

0.470.470.350.34

0.1

0.01

0.0010.001

0.0001

0.00001

"Strippability"

"Strippable"

Perceivedas

"difficultto strip"

Generallylabeledas

"NotStrippable"

or"Not

feasibleto strip"

TypicalRemoval

Efficiency (2)

93-96%

87 - 99%

(3)92 - 99%90 - 99%50 - 98%90-99%77 - 80%

50%(3)

* Site specific compounds.(1) Equations have been developed to predict the removal efficiency of a compound by relating the air-to-water ratio

used, the temperature, and the compound's Henry's Law constant. It should be noted that the Henry's lawconstants are only an indication of removal efficiency and are derived from observations using relativelyconcentrated solutions, and may not be accurate when treating a more dilute influent.

(2) Estimated figure derived from literature survey.(3) Limited data available.

file:6053tb!2.wk1 Golder Associates AR^fl^Q^^ Pa0e1 of 1

Q

ZIf

-

BLE3

YN LANDFILL RI/FS

1 <C >" i~ O1-

m

LU

»»

i

_,

8COQ

INING TO MANAGEMENT AND

LUENT AND RESIDUALS

2 ItCC LL"LU t-

PERMITS

1FREATMEr

0 U..< °coO

§DCDLUCC

IT

Applic

abilit

y

tg^

1CUQ

Regulation

CO

«0? 2

Specifies sta

ifor

discharge

Applies t

o discharge

ofind

ustria

l wastes to wa

ters

CO

%l£ z?!CO _5 2CO CD3 C

IS

M *O.S CNJ

Pennsylvani

Code,

Title

>

oCD Q.•° 2.9 « «

POTW. A

ppi

as ef

fluent

mbe di

scharge)

of th

e Commonwealth,

either

direc

tly, o

r indi

rectly

by means

of di

scharge to a

POTW.

ICO6

T3_. CD_ E>ilCO CO

IS-

Will n

eed to t

if effl

uent c

arto Conoy

Cre

T!

Sets

forth

water q

uality

'standards f

or th

e waters

of th

e Commonwealth basei

CD|*5 COco "2P+_>

CO>> >»co &c '15£8

M *O.2 C\J

Pennsylvan

Code,

Title

Chapter 93

0)

upon wa

ter u

ses which are

to be

protected a

nd ar

e to b

considered

in re

gulation of

discharges.

ifCD «

*CO CO

§s«l«

Will n

eed to t

if effl

uent c

anto Co

noy Cre

£

75

*" CD bsCo *c w

III*2 2* oCO T3 -t

038co cr Q.

CD 'C

> 'C^ >

"c5 >H

1 1LL 0

+£

2 §!«c .238O CO

I0

3CO•oco

"5« E.

CDJjl ^S s5 °.oJS =*- co •* .** CD 1= co * SSillE S fiw c 2 CDQ. co o> .Q

m $•

Required

if wi

thdrawing m

orthan 100,000

gpd (cumulativ

of gr

oundwater.

§ S••= ^i§SQ. O CC< U. CO

COe f

Susquehahl

River B

asin

Commissiot

in•5CDc?Q.

er As

sociates

noO

—

file:6053tb!3.wk

RR3Q3937

COinocoCOCJOJ

CO§5Q.<

i2COoo

E3 LANDFILL

RI/FS

NG TO MANAGEMENT AN

m z zH- O Hh- CC

X UJ

SiN -S.-i CCUJ LU

Q.O

COO

Scc

.

,

ENT AND RESIDUALS

SLLLU1-LUSMl•••

I-LL

Remarks

Applicability

Description

0

S§?cc

T3__ CDo 2sCD 2"O o'w _coo

^

Will n

eed t

o be

if eff

luent

can t

•|CDP

Specific tr

eatment r

equire!

and e

ffluen

t limi

tation

s

CD

CO^

Pennsylvania

Wastewater T

_. in.2 CM§ 2> £I"1".C C3C ^3Q) OQ. 0

SO1oO

for ea

ch wa

ste discharge

based upon Wa

ter Quality

Standards and applicable

Regulations

tf>O>CDQ.CO

6

treatment requirements.

S o>'$CD .S >P P>>

Leachate

treat

ipri

or to

dischar

efflue

nt to

POT

Requires management of

wasteloads

to pr

event t

heintroduction of

pollutants

Pennsylvania

Pretreatment

Regulations

..2 CMC •*,CD Tco -j-. oj

T32PCO

§CDAO•oCDCD

to POTWs

which

will

interf

ere wi

th Pl

ant

Operations.

>,»- 53co - *-C CD 0.c *o toCD O .COL O O

-Q

o E?CD j22 oco co

§1-

111

COr

Provides

rules r

egarding

NPDES

Permits,

Applicatk

Monitoring an

d Permit

Pennsylvania

Discharge

Elimination

..2 CM

f." feC? CD Q.

§E5a. O O

Conditions.

CO

Systems Rule

"§|||wCO E p cpr> 2 | 2fi|2»£•§>•§ 1•p c .E o

1 °lll*; Q. CD CD '5

^SSi?

T3

Requirements

for propose

altera

tions to

the banks

or be

ds of

a wa

terbody.

t .

CDECD

^ S?3 Cuc cCO CO

filliilio ? cc cc

^ io~C ir*

'E <jj o

^•«-iC CD Q.C "0 CO05 0 SZQ. O O

in"ofMmOL

jfesso

ciates

ioCD

T—

"sco£COinoi

AR303938

CDUJcc

CO8

arks

.1

.Q.

1CDO

O)CDCC

CDI

COCD CD

1 I| flf |l II<» S3 ."S T3 E

°> 2 c" .E .c !± CDCO CO O "O CO (U COCD CD a c CD •£ .c•**" "5 3 " **~ ^

CO

I i 'i 11'<* <D w C >ff Q« oo —

S & 15 ">» .0-i|i i i iCD CO CD CD 3 3CC 2 CD Q. S CC

W (s. -2 CM „

i" JiS 1

.2 Sr'T 2 "CD 3. C 0) Q. _"O CO C "D CO COo jc CD o x: ino Q.OO g

CD

AR303939

COin

§

CO

_lCO2COaOz

UJ rf

ILE3

s| LANDFILL

RI/FS

JING TO MA

NAGE

MDENT AND RESIDE

< 5 < LLH O H U.P E uj£ UJ H

3^5NibD)||a u..< °COOH

3CDUJCC

•

1CDCC

Applic

abilit

yDescription

i'•§COLT

>• c= "* ,o<.0 5 o °o•o £ .22 -B « P =00 £ .2 2 CD -o .2 •CO £ >- 3> ° f: S CO co™ +** 05 O) **5» Cj Cw +.J (/} •

^ QJ {Q " ^ Q5 ^ fft * ? QJiiiiiiriniio „ « S co -| .2 g 2 .2 § «

O> CO m cf•12 |.2| |||

sills= S =5 tofillwo 2 i

2

•$. 15 0) CD O "O5? 3 g> o> Q. -35 gj^ ^J CO (Q w Q5

Q. CC 2 w H "o 5

_. in.2 CM o>

Q} O)CO « » £y|

"?> i~ oCO •* •••C CD Q.C T3 COCD O SZQ- O O

o>_c±i

Jg 2? .o 8 9 .^£i?2?i>i|185?*C T3 >3 2 O5-1" i*2 8 < o .S

2

Specifies permissi

emission

levels

for ai

r poll

utants

.

COs2 - *I 2 c1 «. Itil 'sis0. W O

_, in.2 CM COco 2 ">» P CDc CD" Q.C T3 COCD O .CQ- O O

O).c±i

co CDCO *- .

s S S -a"™™™ CO CO <*ho> *•* c: JX o

•Q o °- £v rS CO0 *- 0) >< CD** T3 C 2 0>•0 O -Q. Q. >=

8*1*1*!?!«2 8 < o S

com .

Specifies a

llowab

liemission

level

s for

air po

llutan

ts.

CO

w 5c 2.2 5

co co oc •= Q..2 ,?, u. .±% - 2 <B * w "cf.ll |cc to 31< Z c «CL c 2 toLU 0 W X

coCCLLOo

m"oi§1«b

CO(Us110CD

T—

SCOJOCOm

i

_J32COQQ

E3 LANDFILL

RI/FS

NG TO MANAGEMENT

Af

ENT AND RESIDUALS

_i 7 — -3CO 5 Z II2ll«t!:

S- E LUX UJ H-h a- z

ELIZABE

IONS AND PERMITS

OF TREATME

5DCDLUDC

•

1COocc

Applic

abilit

yDescription

co«CO2O5CD

"'

•oCD'3 "ondE c? .2— 'Q. eO

'!£!l."lS3 co -Q. s= .E

tf >,

Permit

required to

constn

assemble,

instal

l or m

odif

any s

tationary a

ircontamination source.

Pennsylvania

Air Po

llution

Control Act

~< «.2 co§ ® «IE t!>» CDCO - *5C CD Q.C "O COCD O J=Q. O O

•o '2

II .S.E-1

———— Q. CO'§ .9- =6* is CD« <o EE •!= CO0) CO •-Q. .*= .S

Regulation

of ai

rcontamination

sources for t

he pu

blic

welfare and compliance

with ambient

air q

uality

standards.

CO

21 =S 0w CO

.2 S S oi * I §E o .> -to S t> 2C 'O CO CDO O CD Q.O 2 CC O

.2 8 IIICO - 2C CD Q.C "D COCO O J=Q. O O

oinCDO>

£

CO^S fn' - SL Tn - 2Z —

C « 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _O 3 O > C " O C O C " O C O C Oos O o i o i i o o j z • in§

CD

Q<CO

2CO

!$$;

If

1E;

I91a:

1iiiS-

I

*!Zr

C3

*

ij'iijv

il

ijjS

:©i::

ill

pi1'S»!r

•:;!#

i1®sJO

•S,"»CU

1g1:;:;S;'w0;

8

11

1

:Q

••!•;•!•!•

§

IIa

1i

Specif

ic ap

plicat

ion fo

rremoval o

f VOCs.

Treatment of ai

r emissions

may b

e required.

Retain

for ev

aluati

on.

z

z

CD

i 2o 2 ®J Bs

£O)±

Air st

rippin

g is a mass tra

nsfer pr

ocess in wh

ich

volati

le organics

are e

vaporated from th

e aqueous ph

ase.

Factors

important i

nremoval of or

ganics

via a

ir st

rippin

g are te

mperature, pr

essure,

air to

water r

atio,

and s

urface ar

ea av

ailable f

or mass tra

nsfer.

This pr

ocess is us

ed to

treat

aqueous organic w

aste

with

relat

ively

high

volat

ility,

low w

ater

solub

ility (e.g.,

chlorinated h

ydrocarbons

and aromatics).

oQl0.CCCOcc<

May b

e applicable f

orremoval of tr

ace le

velcontaminants (e.g., SVOCs

and pes

ticide

s. Most

effect

ive as

secondary

(polis

hing) ph

ase.

Retain

for ev

aluati

on.

CD

S s|-1 ECD2 x:® 2 .£?SCD2 r:CD O O)

"8 "Is2n ^<5 o .5?"§ *" X2

This pr

ocess is us

ed to

treat

single-phase aq

ueous organic w

astes

with hi

gh mo

lecular w

eight a

nd bo

iling

point a

nd lo

w solu

bility

and

polari

ty, ch

lorinated hydrocarbons, and aromatics b

y passing th

ewaste eff

luent ov

er or

through carbon beds or co

lumns. Carbon to

be us

ed fo

r adsorption is us

ually t

reated

to pr

oduce a

product w

ith

large s

urface-to-volume

ratio

, thus, ex

posing a

practi

cal maximum

number

of ca

rbon at

oms to be

activ

e adsorbers.

Carbon so

treat

edis said to

be "a

ctivated" for

adsorption.

Qjj

I

S oD 03Z CCDC OO

Primar

ily us

ed an

d very

effect

ive fo

r metals r

emoval.

Little

benef

it fo

r other

fracti

ons.

Condit

ionall

yeliminated.

.cCO±

2500)—'**'§

2

2S O CD— ' *" E

2CD"

* O CD~"J ** E

2

Ion e

xchange is

basic

ally t

he ex

change

of an

ion w

ith a

high io

nexchange

selec

tivity

for a

n ion wit

h a lo

wer s

electi

vity.

Although

there a

re na

turall

y occurring io

n exchange me

dia,

the p

rocess

isusually b

ased

on th

e use o

f spec

ifical

ly fo

rmulated re

sins having an

"exchangeable"

ion bound

to th

e resi

n with a

"weak

ionic

" bond.

The p

rocess is

commonly us

ed to

remove

toxic

metal ions fr

omsol

ution.

LUCD

IOxUJzg

Wide

range o

f appl

icabil

ityhowever c

oncentration of

TDS and TSS may dic

tate

pre-treatment. R

etain for

evaluation as

alter

nate o

rsecondary metals re

moval

technology.

cCDX

1 ^CD 0 OJE iSCD2 .CO O CD"g *" ISCD2 J=CD O .O)E ""* XS

Reverse Osmosis is a pr

ocess whereby the w

aste st

ream fl

ows p

ast

a membrane while t

he so

lvent, su

ch as

water, is

pulle

d through th

emembrane's

pores a

nd th

e remaining s

olutes, s

uch as or

ganic o

rinorganic c

omponents, do

not pass

through, bu

t become mo

re an

dmore

concentrated on

the inf

luent

side of

the m

embrane.

CO

iOLU.CO'ECLU2)^

5

i

*

II!IPIllllli

lip

111!!

;l|•5*£ig(j3Wm;pm;

IIHit;3K:

11i§SB:

ppiHi

III!§;:«Jfi':j*i:

It

?jB:i;!»U;j

iSSiip•:ffi,j::SvT-;:

1:?S'i

1

piils

llliHill•$••;•&•;•;•;•

llli

llliilIIIini!|1|||

•1l|£•:•:•:*

ffii:;g!J:Up

illHi•£Jj>jiQ:;

IIIslHl«H ;:•:•:•:•:

::%'&:*:£SS-ttSS:

75 =

Primarily u

sed and v

ery

effect

ive fo

r metals r

emov

Little

benef

it fo

r other

fracti

ons.

Handling

ofsludge ne

eds considerate

Retain fo

r evaluation.

CD

2 c. .<0 O .O>

2

g—i

s-1

1_JE

Chemical

preci

pitati

on is a

pH ad

justment pr

ocess. To a

chieve

precip

itatio

n, ac

id or

base

is ad

ded to a

soluti

on to

adjus

t the pH

to a

point w

here

the c

onstituents t

o be removed have

their

lowest

solubi

lity.

Chemical

preci

pitati

on fa

cilita

tes th

e removal

ofdissolved metals fr

om aqueous wastes.

Solid se

paration is

affec

tby st

andard

flocculation/coagulation te

chniques.

O*c z— PUJ 5ft D0. C3

58Lu zX <0

m H

Potent

ially ha

s wide ran

giof

appli

cabili

ty, however,

BOD lev

els ar

e too lo

w to

sustain b

iologi

cal tr

eatme

Conditionally e

liminated.

S5 2~* ~* E

2CD

5 25 2 ®2

CD

£5 r:o o .g>3 ** «•O •!•2CD2 £:CD O CD

E ** x2

Biolog

ical t

reatment in

cludes ae

robic and anaerobic p

rocess

tofac

ilitat

e removal of

organics an

d other c

onstituents f

rom a

waste

stream.

zUJ

IrnOIH*-jO

8dCD

B " o

1 1 > f||| 1 g

6 3 2 « CD

12<3 ^CD O O)"g *" X2

D>X

O)X

Oxidation p

rocesses

involve t

he ex

change

of el

ectrons b

etween

chemical sp

ecies and eff

ect a ch

ange

in th

e oxid

ation (v

alence)

state of

the s

pecies

involved.

Specif

ically

, oxid

ation pr

ocesses

are ref

erred to

as ox

idation-reduction (

redox)

reactions b

ecause

one o

f the sp

ecies involved ga

ins e

lectrons (reduced va

lence

state-reduction) an

d another l

oses el

ectrons (

increased valence

state-oxidation).

This ex

change

of el

ectrons w

ill de

stroy o

rganic

compounds by br

eaking bonds

and creating new, smaller

compounds.

z

IoXooLU

5

t

CM

15<MO

C?

*01T5

O

I*fB§s

AR3039U3

April 1993 923-6053

TABLE 5ELIZABETHTOWN LANDFILL RI/FS

TREATABILFTY STUDIES EVALUATION REPORTSUMMARY OF BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES*

:fc&#;-&;

VOLATILESBenzene1 ,2-DichloroethaneTrichloroethylene1 ,1 -Dichloroethylene1 ,1 ,1 -TrichloroethaneVinyl chloridecis-1 ,2-DichloroethyleneEthylbenzeneTetrachloroethyleneTolueneXylenes (total)

SEMIVOLATILESPentachlorophenolBenzo(a)pyrene

PESTICIDESChlordaneHeptachlorHeptachlor epoxldeLindaneMethoxychlorEndrin

IBESliil ltaWEB-EJ||||||||s;:;;:s;;:;:s!Str|pj3lniCJ|;;;j:;;;:;:g;:i::

XXXXXXXXXXX

$8tf0|QP3G aalillillllilllilijisrA l t W rtXHi.sss'

XXXXX

XXXXX

XX

XXXXXX

NOTES:* Taken from Federal Primary Drinking Water Standards,

40 CFR 142.62.1. This table is considered relevant to the site as the low levels

of pesticides and semi-volatiles present at Elizabethtown Landfillwould be expected to be similar to those present in drinkingquality water treated by the above technologies.

2. Chemical oxidation (although included in the original table)was found not to be applicable to any of the above compounds.

file:6053tb!5.wk1 Golder Associates Page 1 of 1

AR3039I4**

APPENDIX A

RREL TREATABILITY DATABASE INFORMATION

AR3039I45

APPENDIX Al

TECHNOLOGY CODES AND GENERAL INFORMATION

AR30391+6

RREL Treatability Database Ver. 4.0

TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES CODE AND ABBREVIATION TABLE

AQUEOUS DATA FILE

Treatment Technologies (Those with data)

AAS - Activated Alumina SorptionAFF - Aerobic Fixed Film •AL - Aerobic LagoonsAPI. - API Oil/Water SeparatorAS - Activated SludgeAirS - Air StrippingAlkHyd - Alkaline HydrolysisAnFF - Anaerobic Fixed FilmAnL - Anaerobic Lagoons .BGAC - Biological Granular Activated CarbonCAC - Chemically Assisted Clarification .ChOx - Chemical Oxidation (Parantheses shows oxidation chemical

ie. ChOx(Cl) is chlorine, ChOx(Oz) is ozone, and ChOx(Sur) issurfactant)

ChPt - Chemical PrecipitationChRed - Chemical ReductionDAF - Dissolved Air FlotationED - ElectrodialysisFil - FiltrationGAC - Activated Carbon (Granular)IE - Ion ExchangeKPEG - Dechlorination of -Toxics using an Alkoxide (Formed by the reaction

of potassium hydroxide with polyethylene glycol (PEG400))PACT - Powdered Activated Carbon Addition to Activated SludgeRA - Resin AdsorptionRBC - Rotating Biological Contactor,. RO - Reverse OsmosisSBR - Sequential Batch ReactorSCOx - Super Critical OxidationSed - SedimentationSExt - Solvent ExtractionSoft - .Water SofteningSS - Steam StrippingTF - Trickling FilterUF - UltrafiltrationUV - Ultraviolet RadiationWOx - Wet Air OxidationNOTES:

___ + ___ is the first process unit followed in process trainby the second ie. AS + Fil - Activated Sludge followedby Filtration.

___ w ___ is the two units together ie. UFwPAC - Ultrafiltrationusing Powdered Activated Carbon.

___(B) is batch instead of continuous flow.

Scale

B - Bench Top P - Pilot Plant F - Full Scale

Number after1 letter refers to the plant number in a specific reference(ex. F7 - plant 7 is the seventh full scale plant in the indicated report)

Matrix

• C - Clean water (ex. distilled)D - Domestic wastewaterGW - GroundwaterHL - Hazardous leachateI - Industrial wastewaterML - Municipal leachateRCRA - RCRA listed wastewaterS - Synthetic wastewaterSF - Superfund wastewaterSP - SpillT - Tap waterTSDF - Commercial treatment, storage and disposal facility - liquidsW - Surface water

SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) Codes

For industrial wastewaters a 2 digit SIC code will be given followingthe letter designation, i.e. I 22 is a Textile Mill Products wastewater.If the SIC code is unknown a U will be shown, I U.

10 - Metal mining12 - Coal mining13 - Oil and gas extraction20 - Food and kindered products22 - Textile mill products24 - Lumber and wood products26 - Paper and allied products except computer equipment27 - Printing and publishing28 - Chemicals and allied products29 - Petroleum refining and related30 - Rubber and misc. plastic products31 - Leather and leather products33 - Primary metals industries34 - Fabricated metal products except machinery & transportation equip36 - Electronic and electric equipment37 - Transportation Equipment39 - Misc. manufacturing industries47 _ Transportation services49 - Electric, gas, and sanitary99 - Nonclassiflable establishments industries

Effluent Concentration

Effluent concentration will be given as a arithmetic mean to twosignificant figures. The number of samples used to calculate themean is given after concentration as (n) (ex. 13 (5) - 13 is themean of 5 sample values).

% Removal

Percent removal will be calculated on a concentration basis. If dataare available, it will also be calculated on a mass basis forphysical/chemical systems. Those values calculated on a mass basiswill be noted by a (m). An example would be:

% Removal: 99.95 99.95 is based on concentration98(m) 98 is based on mass

Influent - Effluentwhere % Removal = ——:—————————————

influent ft R 3 0 3 9 «4 8

Reference Quality Codes

A - Papers in a peer reviewed journal.B - Government report or database.

- Reports and/or papers other than in groups A-or B not reviewed.- Group C papers and/or reports which have been given a "good"quality rating by a selected peer review.

E - Group C papers and /or reports which have been given a "poor"quality irating by a selected peer review. These data will onlybe used when no other data are available.

Additional Codes Following Reference Codes

V - Volatile emissions data available in ReferenceS - Sludge data available in Reference$ - Costs data available in Reference

Physical/Chemical Properties Data

(c) - Values presented are values that were reported calculatedin the reference as is and are only used where measuredare not available.

NA - Value for the particular property have not been foundin literature to date.

SOLIDS DATA FILE

(Includes Thermal Destruction of Liquids)

'Combination (two or more of the following)DebrisLiquid (both aqueous and organic liquids)Sediment •SludgeSoilGroundwater

Technologies (Those with data)

Treatment systems are non-in situ unless labelled "(in situ)" after thename of the technology.

LTD - Low Temperature Desorption Fil - FiltrationSE - Solvent Extraction UV - UV Rad.\Light\SolarTD - Thermal Destruction Land - LandfarmingComp - Composting Elec - Electro-KineticsSol - Solidification Ozon - OzonationBio - Biological Treatment TD RK - Thermal DestructionCD - Chemical Destruction (Rotary Kiln)1BD,asp - Biological Destruction, VE(in) - Vacuum Extraction

aerobic, solid phase (in-situ)

Concentration

umber in "()" following "After" is number of tests/runs usedo calculate average concentrations and "% Improvement".

Improvement,%

Change in % based upon "Analytical Method".

DRE * Cone, in - Exhaust gas Cone.Cone. in

TCA, etc. = Cone, in soil at start - Cone, in soil at endCone, in soil at start

EPT, TCLP, etc. = Cone, of Infl. leachate - Cone, of Effl. leachateCone, of Infl. leachate

Scale

B - Bench Top, P - Pilot Plant, F - Full Scale

Number after letter refers to the test/run number or plantnumber in the specific reference. The test/run is a continuousflow process unless there is a "{B)M after scale, then it is a batchprocess (ex. PI (B) - is first pilot test under batch conditions).

ReferenceQuality codes same as for "Aqueous" data file. One extra field notesif cost data are available in reference.

Analytical MethodLists anayltical test used to generated both the "Before" and "After"concentrations except for "(DRE)" which is the destruction/removalefficiency based upon feed mass per unit time and air emission massper unit time.

(DRE) - Destruction and removal efficiencyEPT - Extraction procedure toxicity testTCA - Total contaminant analysisTCLP - Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure test

Operating ParametersKey operational parameters during test/run.

END

UR303950

APPENDIX A2

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

AR30393!

EL Treatability Database Ver No. 4.0 03/22/93

BENZENE

S NO.: 71-43-2

MPOUND TYPE: AROMATIC,HYDROCARBON

RMULA: C6 H6

EMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES REF.

MOLECULAR WEIGHT: 78.11 333AMELTING POINT (C): 5.5 333ABOILING POINT (C) : 80.1- . 333AVAPOR PRESSURE § T(C), TORR: 95 @ 25 462ASOLUBILITY IN WATER @ T(C), MG/L: 1780 @ 20 463ALOG OCTANOL/WATER PARTITION COEFFICIENT: 2.13 379BHENRY'S LAW CONSTANT, ATM X M3 MOLE-1: 5.55 E-3 @ 25 19ID

VIRONMENTAL DATA REF.

«NIC NONCARCINOGENIC SYSTEMIC TOXICITY NAESTIMATES FOR CARCINOGENS 4BKING WATER HEALTH ADVISORIES/STANDARDS 346B

WATER QUALITY CRITERIA 345BAQUATIC TOXICITY DATABASE 5B

EUNDLICH ISOTHERM DATA

Ce; > X/MSORBENT MATRIX K 1/N UNITS UNITS REF.

RIT PEAT CARBON C ' 0.73 0.61 ug/L mg/gm 764BCHAR WV-G C 1.07 0.48 ug/L rag/gin 764BLTRASORB 400 C 1.12 0.39 ug/L mg/gm 764B-DRODARCO 1030 C 1.18 0.36 ug/L ' mg/gm 764BLTRASORB 300 C ' 1.0 1.6 mg/L mg/gm 3BLTRASORB 400 C 0.036 0.48 mg/L mg/mg 12ALTRASORB 400 C 1.26 0.533 ug/L mg/gm 79A

HR303952

RREL Treatability Database Ver. No. 4.0 03/22/93

BENZENE . . .

CAS NO.: 71-43-2

INFLUENT CONCENTRATION - 0-100 ug/LEFFLUENT

TECHNOLOGY MATRIX SIC SCALE CONCENTRATION PERCENT REFERENCECODE ( ug/L ) REMOVAL

AS D F5 <0.7 (7) >97.4 234A——AS D F 6 (10) 81 201B -S-AS D P <0.2 (20)' >99.73 206B VS-AS D F58 <16 (6) >84 IB -S-TF D Fil 1 (5) '97.5 IB -S-AirS+GAC GW Fl <1 (19) >90.9 229A ——RO GW F2 3.8 95.1 250B ——AS I ,28 F4 <1 (1) >92.3 32B ——AS I 28 F6 <1 (1) >88 • 32B ——AS I 28 F2 <10 (28) >89.6 6B ——AS I 28 F25 <10 (3) >54 87B ——CAC(B) I 49 B2 3.4 (1) 0 638B ——ChOx (Cl) (B) I 28 F18 <10 (1) >66 87B ——ChOx(Cl) I 33 F 4.6 94.3 9E —$GAG I 28 Fl ' <5 (1) >54 32B ——GAC I 28 F4 10 (1) 0 87B ——GAG I 28 F3 <10 (1) >38 87BRA I 28 F4 10 (1) 0 87BRA (B) + FIL I 28 F20 12 (1) 86 87BPACT RCRA B <5 >83 242E ---AS S B 0.5 (16) 97.8 200B VS-RO S . P 32 (1) 19 323B ——AS SF F6 <10 (1) >81 245B ——GAC • SF F4 <10 (5.) >60 245B ——ITVWH202 SF P3 <0.5 (10) >83 92D —$Fil+GAC TSDF F4 <2 (1) >90.5 28B VS-


BENZENE

CAS NO.: 71-43-2

INFLUENT CONCENTRATION - >100-1000 ug/LEFFLUENT

ECHNOLOGY MATRIX SIC SCALE CONCENTRATION PERCENT REFERENCECODE ( ug/L ) REMOVAL

L D F55 <10 (6) >94.4 IB -S-3 .D F28 <1 (6) >99.55 IB -S-3 D F6 0.6 (7) 99.83 234A" ——3 D F38 2 (6) 98.9 IB -S-S D F30 <2 (6) >99.00 IB -S-L GW F2 <10 (2) >96.6 87B ——irS GW P <0.5 (1) >99.67 224B —$irS GW F <0.44 (22) >99.74 322B —$L I 28 F24 <10 (2) >92.3 6B ——L I 28 F12 <10 (2) >98.9 6B ——S I 28 F5 <10 (7) >98.8 6B ——S I 28 F33 <10 (14) >95.7 6B ———S I 28 Fl 11 (1) 98.0 32B ——S I 28 , F2 * 70 (1) 73 32B —-S I 28 F7 <1 (1) >99.58 32B ——

I 28 F3 <30 (22) >91.!7- 6B ' ——I 28 F20 <10 (3) >95.6 6B ——I 28 F8 <5 (1) >98.9 32B ——

+ FIL I 28 F19 73 (1) 61 87B ——I 28 F5 <56 (2) >91.5 87B ——I 28 Fl <10 (10) >96.3 251B V-$I 28 F28 <10 (3) >96.3 87B ——

S S B 0.8 (16) 99.30 200B VS-S S B 1.0 (8) 99.83 200B VS-ACT S ' B 0.7 (12) 99.34 200B VS-irS SF PI (3) 99.09 1362E —$irS SF F6 <18 (5) >92.7 ' 245B ——hPt SF F6 240 (5) '' 23 245B —r-il SF F6 250 (5) 0 245B ——O " SF F4 67 92.7 250B ——0 • SP P2 50, 78 250B ——ACT TSDF 'Bl <1 >99.66 46E ——

AR3 039514


BENZENE

GAS NO.: 71-43-2

INFLUENT CONCENTRATION - >1-10 mg/LEFFLUENT

TECHNOLOGY ' MATRIX SIC SCALE CONCENTRATION PERCENT REFERENCECODE ( ug/L ) REMOVAL

AirS GW F 52 (19) 98.7 - 322B —$RO GW F3 140 92.2 250B ——GAC HL Fl <10 (1) >99.28 245B ——AL I 28 Fil <40 (3) >96.6 87B ——API+DAF+AS I 29 F 3.7 (4) 99.959 1482D ——AS I 28 F10 <10 (3) >99.09 6B ——AS I 28 Fil <10 (3) >99.71 6B ——AS I 28 Fl <11 (27) >99.80 6B ——GAC I 33 F 80 98.6 9E —$WOx RCRA F 29 99.64 242E ——AL S B 60 98.0 371D VS-ChOx(Cl) (B) S Bl 9,000 (1) 10 49E ——ChOx(Oz) (B) S B2 9,200 (1) 8.0 49E ——WOx (B) S B3 500 53 1054E V—UF SP P2 230 78 250B ——

RR303955



AL+AS I 28 F 13 (21) 99.900 ' 233D VS-AS I 28 F31 <10 (15) >99.974 6B ——SS I 28 F32 10 (2) 99,971 6B ——SS I 28 F15 <10 (10) >99.989 6B —-TF+AS I 28 .F21 <10 (3) >99.974 6B ——AirS S B2 9,300 (5) 90.0 1328E ——


1 BENZENE

CAS NO.: 71-43-2


ECHNOLOGY MATRIX SIC SCALE CONCENTRATION PERCENT REFERENCECODE ( mg/L ) REMOVAL

S+Fil I 28 F26 0.020 (3) 99.994 6B ——S I 28 F17 0.048 (12) 99.994 6B ——S I 28 F32 0.20 (3) 99.938 6B ——S S B 0.040 99.974 202D VS-

(B) S Bl 180 82 1054E V—

AR303956

RREL Treatability Database . Reference Number: 9E

Zwikl, J.R., N.S. Buchko and D.R. Junkins, "Physical/Chemical Treatment ofCoke Plant Wastewaters", Pollution Abatement Technology Symposium,Pittsburgh, PA (November 1982).

The GAC system consists of two 40,000 Ib. vessels operated in series.Average flow rate =0.38 mgd.

The single-stage alkaline chlorination system consists of two completelymixed 15,000 gallon oxidation tanks operated in parallel plus associatedpumps, chemical, etc.. Chlorine dosages of 2,000 mg/L or less were used tooxidize the cyanide.

*END OF DATA*

AR303957

RREL Treatability Database Reference Number: 242E

Randall, T.L., M.J. Dietrich and W.M. Buettner, "Solvent Waste Cleanup bya Combination of Wet Air Oxidation and Biophysical Treatment", Presented at

Annual WPCF Conference (October 1987) .used in this study was a mixture of several commercial

sources representative of RCRA F001-F005 solvent wastes. The full-scalewet air oxidation (WOX) system was operated as follows:

Flow rate =7.67 gal/min (81% wastewater,12% dilution water,

. 7% of 20% nitricacid)

Temperature = 257 CPressure = 1280 psigResidence time =83 .minutes

The effluent from the WOX system was then treated in a bench-scale PACTsystem.

HRT =3.8 daysSRT =20 daysCarbon feed rate = 850 mg/LMixed liquor carbon = 4450 mg/LMixed liquor biomass = 3800 mg/LMixed liquor suspended ash = 2790 mg/LMixed liquor temperature = 20-22 C .

*END OF DATA* .

AR303958

RREL Treatability Database Reference Number: 224B

Cummins, M.D., "Field Evaluation of Packed Column Air Stripping-Bastrop,LA, February 1984", Internal Report, TSD, ODW, EPA, Cincinnati, OH.

Same pilot plant as for Ref. 207B.

Data collected at five air:water ratios (8 to 87) and at severalpressure-drop gradients. Data in table for air:water ratio = 45 withliquid loading = 0.0096 m3/m2-sec and air loading =0.43 m3/m2-sec.

*END OF DATA*

RREL Treatability Database Reference Numbar: 207B

3uminins, M.D., "Field Evaluation of Packed Column Air Stripping - ValleyPark, MO, March 1985", Internal Report, TSD, ODW, EPA, Cincinnati, OH.

plant 2 ft ID, 24 ft tall with 18 ft of 1 in. plastic, saddles.olleeted at 10 depths for each run. Six runs with air:water ratio

varied from 0.9 to 39.

Data on table from airtwater = 39 with liquid loading = 20 gpm/ft2,*END OF DATA*

AR303960


•Dietrich, C., D. Treichler and J. Armstrong, "An Eyaluation ofRotary Air Stripping for Removal of Volatile Organics fromGroundwater", Engineering & Services Laboratory, Air Force Engineering& Services Center, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, Report No. AD-A78 831(February 1987).

A commercial-scale rotary air stripping (RAS) unit was evaluated forremoval of organics from a contaminated groundwater in Traverse City, MI.A total of 209 runs were conducted with a range in contaminantconcentrations (63 to 19,000 ppb), liquid flow rates (50 to 120 gpm), airto water ratios (10:1 to 170:1), and rotor speeds (365 to 875 rpm). TheRAS consisted of a packed bed 1.7 ft in diameter by 1.2 ft thick with thepacking material made of a metal foam.

*END OF DATA*

AR30396I

ZKEL Treatability Database Reference Number: 638B

)earborn Environmental Consulting Services, "Characterization andrreatability of Drainage Samples from Coal Piles at steam Electric Power

s", EPS 3-WP-82-4, Environmental Protection Service, Environment(August 1982) .

k series of bench-top jar tests were conducted on coal pile drainagefastewaters from several locations in Canada. The jar tests were conductedis follows: rapid mix at 100 rpm for 1 minute after addition of primarycoagulant, 5 minutes slow mix and then 30 minutes of settling beforesampling. Data reported herein used the following chemical additions:

Bl - lime addition to raise pH to 8.20.25 mg/L anionic polyelectrolyte

B2 - 500 mg/L calcium chloride

B3 - 100 mg/L lime0.5 mg/L anionic polyelectrolyte

*END OF DATA*

AR303962


Sorg,T.J. and Q.T. Love, Jr., "Reverse Osmosis Treatment to ControlInorganic and Volatile Organic Contamination", Proceedings from AWWASeminar, Dallas, TX, pp 73-92 (June 1984).

Data are reported for parts of several studies. Data included herein forFilmtec FT-30, thin film composite spiral wound R.O. pilot plant operatedon distilled water spiked with VOCs. The unit had a surface area = 25ft2, operated at 200 psi with a flow rate = 11 L/min (permeate =1.5L/min, reject = 9.5 L/min). Samples were taken after 1, 3, 6, 9 and 21hours of operation with declining removals (with time) for most of VOCs.

Data herein for samples taken after 21 hours.

*END OF DATA*

AR303963

*REL Treatability Database Reference Number: 28B

•letcalf & Eddy Engineers, Inc., "Field Measurements of Full-scale Hazardoustfaste Treatment Facilities - Organic Solvent Wastes", RREL, U.S. EPA,

Ohio (October 1988) .i fo

3evWal full-scale facilities treating hazardous wastes were sampled.Plant Fl had a steam stripper with a diameter of 8 inches and 10 feet of5/8 inch pall rings. It was operated at about 101 degrees C with a flowrate of 5 gpm.

Plant F3 uses filtration followed by two GAC columns in series to treat thefiltrate from a plate and frame filter press. Three days of compositesamples.

Plant F4 uses filtration followed by two GAC columns in series to treat theDondensate from a four-effect evaporator and it was sampled .(composites)for 3 days.

*END OF DATA*

AR30396U

RREL Treatability Database Reference Number: 1482D

Robertson, J.L. and D.R. Tierney, "Fate of Selected Trace Organics InCanadian Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Treatment Process", Proceedings ofthe Industrial Waste Symposium of the 56th Annual WPCF Conference, Atlant.GA (1983).

The full-scale treatment system consisted of API separators (HRT=2.16 hrs),DAF units (HRT=0.4 hrs), equalization basin (HRT=12 hrs) and activatedsludge process with an average flow of 16,000 m3/day.

Activated Sludge Process:HRT =15 hoursSRT = 15 to 20 daysMLSS = 1300 to 1500 mg/LFinal effluent BOD " = 20 to 50 mg/LFinal effluent ammonia = 1.0 to 1.5 mg/L (as N)Final effluent TSS =50 to 75 mg/L

Several samples were also taken of sludges and air emissions but datapresented as "purgeables", "base neutrals" and "acid fraction" mass fluxes.

*END OF DATA*

AR303965

Treatability Database - Reference Number: 371D

Davis, E.M., J.E. Turley, D.M. Casserly and R.K. Guthrie, "PartitioningDf Selected Organic Pollutants in Aquatic Ecosystems", 5. International3isgfcjterioration, pp 176-185 (1983). • .

\ sMPeh-top treateibility study using a covered 39 liter aquariumpartitioned into 6 compartments was fed a synthetic wastewater for 100lays prior to adding 12 organic compounds and feeding for an additional40 days. The feed rate was 2 L/day for a detention time of 12 days forthe simulated stabilization pond (no aeration). Air was circulated overthe surface and the liquid temperature was held at 23 C. Organic contentDf air and sludge was also measured (data in ref.).

*END OF DATA*

AR303966


Rappe, G.C. and W.L. Schwayer, "Evaluating an Enclosed System forContainment and Destruction of Hazardous and Toxic Wastes", presented atAIChE 1986 Summer Meeting, Boston, MA (1986).

All of the oxidation data (Bl, B2 and B3) were generated using a LaboratorBatch Reactor to simulate the Ver Tech deep (4-5000 ft) shaft oxidationprocess. For B2 runs the Reactor effluents were fed to a complete-mix,bench-top activated sludge unit (HRT = 24 hrs, SRT = 12 days) followed by aGAC column.

For B3 runs the reactor effluent was also fed to a bench biological unit(AS) with an HRT = 30 hr and SRT = 12 days.

No information given on how long AS units or carbon column were operated.

*END OF'DATA*

HR303961

Treatability Database Reference Number: 233D

ierglund, R.L. and G.M. Whipple, "Predictive Modeling of OrganicEmissions", Chemical Engineering Progress, pp 46-54, (November 1987).

DlflBill-scale treatment system consists of primary clarifiers (HRT =2.7irWfr equalization basin (vol. =3.1 mg, HRT = 50 hrs), aeratedstabilization basins (vol. = 22 mg, HRT = 250 hrs, MLSS = approx. 1600ng/L) followed by UNOX (HRT = 27 hrs, MLSS = 6000 mg/L).

Attempts were made to measure air emissions and sludge concentrationsfor the 8 compounds. " '

"END OF DATA*

AR303968


Kincannon D.F., A. Weinert, R. Padorr and E.L. Stover, "PredictingTreatability of Multiple Organic Priority Pollutant Wastewaters fromSingle-Pollutant Treatability Studies", Proceedings of the 37th PurdueIndustrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN (1982)

Data reported on tables generated at:

HRT = 8 hoursSRT = 6 daysInfluent BOD = 250 mg/L (approx.)Effluent BOD <5 mg/L all tests

All data from feeding single priority pollutant with synthetic waste.Systems acclimated for 1 month followed by 60 days of sampling andanalysis. Data also available on removal mechanisms.

Other references contain data at other SRT's and for combinations of 3priority pollutants.

(Additional papers from same study in: JWPCF, January 1983; JWPCF,February 1983; 1981 national conference on environmental engineering (ASCESpecialty conference) and 36th Purdue IWC Proceedings.)

*END OF DATA*

6R303969


CHLOROBENZENE

S NO.: 108-90-7

MPOUND TYPE: AROMATIC,HALOGENATED

RMULA: C6 H5 CL


MOLECULAR WEIGHT: 112.56 333AMELTING POINT (C): -45.6 333ABOILING POINT (C): 132 333AVAPOR PRESSURE @ T(C), TORR: 11.8 @ 25 463ASOLUBILITY IN WATER 6 T(C), MG/L: 488 @ 25 463ALOG OCTANOL/WATER PARTITION COEFFICIENT: 2.84 163AHENRY'S LAW CONSTANT, ATM X M3 MOLE-1: 3.93 E-3 @ 25 19ID


MIC NONCARCINOGENIC SYSTEMIC TOXICITY NAESTIMATES FOR CARCINOGENS NA

DRTNKING WATER HEALTH ADVISORIES/STANDARDS 346BWATER QUALITY CRITERIA 345BAQUATIC TOXICITY DATABASE • 5B


Ce: X/MSORBENT ' MATRIX K 1/N UNITS UNITS REF.

LTRASORB 300 C 91 ,0.99 mg/L ' mg/gm 3BSS * C 0.285 0.96 mg/L mg/gm 246BLTRASORB 400 C 9.17 0.348 ' ug/L mg/gm 79A

AR303970


CHLOROBENZENE

CAS NO.: 108-90-7



GAC D " F 0.25 56 1421D ——RO GW F3 4.0 53 250B. ——AS I 28 F4 <6 >84 975B —$AS I 28 F4 <1 (1) >83 32B ——AS I 28 F31 <10 (1) >38 87B ——GAC I 28 F4 <10 (1) >54 87B ——RA I 28 F4 22 (1) 42 87B ——PACT RCRA B <5 >84 242E ——AFF S, B 1.0 (9) 90.7 501A ——AS S B 0.2 (8) 99.23 200B VS-BGAC S B 0.29 (23) 97.6 501A ——RO S P 12 (1) 50 323B ——AS SF F6 <10 (1) >66 245B ——

AR303971

RREL Treatability Database Ver. No. 4,0 03/22/93

mm CHLOROBENZENE

GAS NO.: 108-90-7


3CHNOLOGY MATRIX SIC SCALE CONCENTRATION PERCENT REFERENCECODE ( ug/L ) REMOVAL

_____________ _________ ____ _____ _____________ ____________ —_________

3 D F30 3 (6) 98.9 - IB -S-3 D P <1.3 (20) >99.34 . 206B VS-3 D PI <4 (5) >98.6 241B VS-

GW F2 <10 (2) >94.1 87B ——.S I 28 F2 12 97.8 975B —$S I 28 F28 <10 (4) >98.9 6B ——S I 28 Fl <10 >94.6 975B —$S I 28 • F3 <6 >94.6 . 975B —$AC I 28 F8 180 (1) 63 . 32B ——ACT I 28 F8 5 (1) 97.2 32B ——3 I 28 Fl <10 (10) >97.4 251B V-$3 S B 1.1 (12) 99.17 200B VS-3 S v B 1.3 (6) 99.81 200B VS-\CT S B 0.8 (11) 99.37 200B VS-irS SF F6 <14 (5) >92.5 245B ——

SF F6 190 (5) 18 245B ——SF F8 660 (5) 34 245B ——SF F8 62° (5) 6 245B ——SF F6 190 (5) 2 245B ——SF F2 <10 (1) >96.6 245B ——SF F8 <10 (5) >97.4 245B ——



AC HL F ' <10 (1) >99.17 237A ——AC HL Fl <10 (1) . >99.70 245B ——S I 28 F13 <13 (2) >99.11 87B——"ACT I 28 F40 <10 (4) >99.38 6B —-ed + As I 28 F28 <10 (3) >99.22 87B ——L S B 160 94.7 371D VS-irS S B2 1,800 (5) 77 1328E —;-hOx(Cl) (B) S Bl 9,000 (1) 10 49E ——hOx(Oz) (B) S B2 9,400 (1) 6.0 . 49E ——0 SF F4 120 91.6 . 250B ——

RR303972


CHLOROBENZENE . . .

RR303973

GAS NO. :

TECHNOLOGY

AirS

TECHNOLOGY

WOx (B)

TECHNOLOGY

108-90-7

INFLUENT CONCENTRATION

MATRIX SIC SCALECODE

S B2


MATRIX SIC SCALECODE •

I U B2



- >10-100 mg/LEFFLUENT

CONCENTRATION PERCENT( ug/L ) REMOVAL

3,300 (5) 89


CONCENTRATION PERCENT( mg/L ) REMOVAL

61 (1) 92.3

- >1 g/LEFFLUENT

CONCENTRATION PERCENT( mg/L ) REMOVAL

REFERENCE

1328E ——

REFERENCE

78E ——

REFERENCE_.... .mWOx (B) S Bl 1600 (1) 72 78E

IREL Treatability Database Reference Number: 237A

IcDougall, W.J., R.A. Fusco and R.P. O'Brien, "Containment and Treatmentjf the Love Canal Landfill Leachate", Journal WPCF, Vol. 52, No. 12,3p£Hl4-2924 (December 1980) .Cwo stage (series) granular activated carbon columns providing onsitelull-scale treatment of the leachate. Each pressurized adsorber contained>0,000 Ibs of carbon; no additional operating criteria provided. Units,started in November 1978 and data in tables from samples taken in MarchL979.

*END OF DATA*

AR3Q3971*

RREL Treatability Database Reference Number: 142ID

Summers, R.S. and P.V. Roberts, "Dynamic Behavior of Organics in Full-scaleGranular Activated-carbon Columns", Advances in Chemistry Series, No. 202,ACS, Washington, D.C.,-pp 503-523 (1983).

The full-scale GAC columns at the Santa Clara Valley WaterDistrict's Palo Alto Reclamation Facility were sampled for over six months.Each of the columns (3 operated in parallel) is operated upf low at a rate .of 4.4 gpm/ft2 (0.5 mgd) which results in an empty-bed contact time of34 min. The data reported herein are averages for columns starting withfresh carbon for throughputs of 13,000 bed volumes.

*END OF DATA*

AR303975

*REL Treatability Database Reference Number: 1328E

tfumford, R.L. and J.L. Schnoor, "Air Stripping of Volatile Organics intfater", Proceedings of the AWWA Annual Conference, Miami Beach, FL,

(1982) .

_ il air stripping studies were conducted using a bench scale unit 4 ftligh and 3.75 in. ID containing 0.25 in. ceramic berl saddles. Runs werenade ,at air to liquid ratios ranging from 25 to 200. Media depth was 1.5ft for some runs and 2.5 ft for others.

data reported, herein for media depth = 1.5 ft and air: water ratio =100:1 (liquid rate = 6.81 m3/m2-hr) . Feed water was tap water spiked withorganics of interest.

The run labeled Bl had a total THM = 400 ug/L and the run labeled B2contained 12 solutes at 5 to 50 mg/L each. . .

*END OF DATA*

SR303976


Keinath, T.M., "Technology Evaluation for Priority Pollutant Removal fromDyestuff Manufacture Wastewaters", U.S. EPA Report No. EPA 600/2-84/055,IERL, Cincinnati„ OH.This report includes results from various studies conducted on six dyestumanufacturing wastewaters. Four of the full-scale activated sludgetreatment systems were sampled for removal of priority pollutants. Noengineering information is available for these facilities.

Bench-top PACT studies were conducted on three of the raw wastewaters.Operational parameters were:

Aeration Volume = 3 litersHRT = 1 daySRT =20 daysCarbon Feed Rate = 250 mg/LCarbon Type = Nuchar S-A 15

Chemical oxidation studies were conducted on the raw wastewaters usingozone. The glass reactor was 5.1 cm in diameter, 3.0 meters high with 1.5meters of 6.3 mm ceramic Rasching rings. Four liters of wastewater wereadded to the reactor and it was recirculated at the rate of 4 L/min as theozone was added to the bottom of the reactor. The following ozone dosageswere applied:

B-l = 1660 mg/L,B-2 . = 500 mg/LB-3 = 810 mg/LB-4 = 1570 mg/LB-6 = 1500 mg/L

*END OF DATA*

AR303977

RREL Traatability Database Reference Number: 501A

Bouwer, E.J. and P.L. McCarty, "Removal of Trace Chlorinated OrganicCompounds by Activated Carbon and Fixed-Film Bacteria", EnvironmentalSoflMce and Technology, Vol. 16, No- 12, pp 836-43 (.December 1982).

TnH r paper presents a comparison between the removal of chlorinatedbenzenes and aliphatics in a granular activated carbon column withmicrobial activity (BGAC) and a control column with bacterial growth on,lyAFF). A solution containing between 10 and 30 ug/L of each organiccompound and 1.39 mg/L of sodium acetate was fed continuously to thecolumns at a 60 min. empty bed contact time for 2 years.

Column Size = 25 mm dia.250 mm depth

Packing BGAC = 5.0 gm Filtrasorb 100 and 155 .gm glassbeads (3 mm dia.j, mixed

AFF = glass beads (3 mm dia.)

Feed Rate =3.0 L/day (each)Empty bed contact time = 60 min (each)

*END OF DATA*

AR303978


Petrasek, A.C., B.M. Austern and T.W. Neiheisel, "Removal and Partitioningof Volatile Organic Priority Pollutants in Wastewater Treatment", Presentedat the Ninth U.S. Japan Conference on Sewage Treatment Technology, Tokyo,Japan (September 1983).

Twelve month pilot plant study at 33.5 gpmPrimary Clarifier

Overflow rate =690 gpd/ft2

Aeration BasinHRT =7.5 hoursSRT =5.9 daysMLSS = 2890 mg/LSVI = 153 ml/gm

Secondary ClarifierOverflow rate =450 gpd/ft2

Secondary EffluentTSS = 30 mg/L, 93% RemovalCOD = 77 mg/L, 87% Removal

Data also available in reference on priority pollutant concentrations onsludges and in aeration basin off-gas.

*END OF DATA*

*

AR303979


Bhattacharya, S.K., R.V.R. Angara, S.A. Hannah, D.F. Bishop, R.A. Dobbsand.' B.M. Austern, "Removal and Fate of RCRA and CERCLA Toxic Organic

tants in Wastewater Treatment", EPA, Cincinnati, OH (September 1988)

Parallel 35 gpm pilot plants were fed screened raw wastewaterspiked with organic pollutants. During the first study (PI) 28 RCPxApollutants were spiked at about 0.25 mg/L each and the units were operatedfor 6 months. During the second study (P2) 19 CERCLA pollutants werespiked at about 0.5 mg/L each and the units were operated for 3 months.During both studies one unit was spiked continuously and the second wasspiked on an intermittent schedule. Data reported herein are for unitspiked continuously (acclimated) .

t

Operating parameters were:Flow =35 gpm

Primary Clarifiersurface loading rate = 687 gpd/ft2

Aeration basinHRT =7.5 hrsSRT = 4 days (PI)

= 8 days (P2)air flow = 200 ft3/min

\

Secondary Clarifiersurface loading rate =452 gpd/ft2

Air emmiss ions were measured off the primary clarifier and the aerationand both primary and waste activated sludge were analyzed for thepollutants.

The average COD and SS removals for the acclimated system during the RCRAstudy were 82 and 97 percent, respectively. During the CERCLAstudy the averages were 88 and 95 percent, respectively. -

*END OF DATA* .

&R3Q39-80


Dietrich, M.J., T.L. Randall and P.J. Canney, "Wet Air Oxidation ofHazardous Organics in Wastewater", Environmental Progress, Vol. 4, No. 3,pp 171-177 (August 1985).

The bench-scale studies were conducted using batch autoclaves having avolume of 500 to 700 ml and they were operated at temperatures ranging from225 to 320 ,C for 60 to 120 minutes (large number of tests on various typesof industrial wastewaters).

The pilot plant runs were conducted under the following conditions:

P-l P-2 P-3

Temperature, C 279 314 243Flow, gph . 6.3 2.6 4.15Residence Time, min 69 128 130Pressure, psig 1558 1943 1582Catalyst Yes No No

The full-scale data were obtained under these conditions:

F-l F-2

Temperature, C 271 281Residence Time, min 117 182

*END OF DATA*

3R3Q398I


CHLOROETHANE

S NO.: 75-00-3

MPOUND TYPE: HYDROCARBON,HALOGENATED

RMULA: C2 H5 CL


MOLECULAR WEIGHT: 64.51 333AMELTING POINT (C): -136,4 333ABOILING POINT (C): 12.3 . 333AVAPOR PRESSURE @ T(C), TORR: 2660 @ 25 463ASOLUBILITY IN WATER @ T(C), MG/L: 5740 @ 20 2031ALOG OCTANOL/WATER PARTITION COEFFICIENT: 1.43 338DHENRY'S LAW CONSTANT, ATM X M3 MOLE-1: 1.11 E-2 @ 24.8 1034A

"VIRONMENTAL DATA • REF.

NONCARCINOGENIC SYSTEMIC TOXICITY NAESTIMATES FOR CARCINOGENS NA

DRINKING WATER HEALTH ADVISORIES/STANDARDS NAWATER QUALITY CRITERIA 345BAQUATIC TOXICITY DATABASE NA

IEUNDLICH ISOTHERM DATA

Ce X/M>SORBENT . MATRIX K 1/N UNITS UNITS REF.

'.LTRASORB 300 C . 0.59 0.95 mg/L mg/gm 3B

AR303982


CHLOROETHANE . . .

GAS NO.: 75-00-3



AS I 28 . F5 <1 (1) >94.4 32B ——


TECHNOLOGY MATRIX, SIC SCALE CONCENTRATION PERCENT REFERENCECODE ( ug/L ) REMOVAL

AL D F55 260 (5) 30 . IB -S-AS D F51 640 (5) 0 IB -S-AS ' D F58 250 (5) ' 0 IB -S-AS I 28 Fl <50 (4) >87 6B ——CAC I 28 F8 340 (1) 42 32B ——GAC I 28 F3 <5 (1) >99.50 32B ——PACT I 28 F8 33 (1) 90.3 32B —-


TECHNOLOGY MATRIX- SIC SCALE CONCENTRATION PERCENT REFERENCECODE ( ug/L ) REMOVAL

PACT I 28 F40 <63 (3) >96.8 6B ——ChOx(Cl) (B) S Bl 8,800 (1) 12 49E ——ChOx(Oz) (B) S B2 8,900 (1) 11 49E ——

INFLUENT CONCENTRATION - >10-100 mg/LEFFLUENT • ... . .


SS I 28 F35 <50 (2) >99.88 6B ——SS I 28 F32 <50 (15) >99.75 6B ——

&R303983


3CS Engineers, "Toxicity Reduction Manual for the organic ChemicalIndustry", U.S. EPA, IERL, Cincinnati, Ohio (February 1984).

D)fl l t of twenty-four hour composite samples was taken across eachfuHPscale treatment system at ten organic chemical manufacturing plants(only nine included herein). The samples were analyzed for prioritypollutants and aquatic toxicity. The products manufactured by each plantas well as the design and operational parameters for the treatment systemsare in the reference. The treatment processes used by each plant were:

Fl EB, AS, GACF2 EB, API, ASF3 EB, GAC, ASF4 Sed, EB, AS -F5 EB, AS . . • , -F6 .EB, AS ' •F7 EB, ASF8 CAC, PACT, ALF9 CAC, AS •

*END OF DATA*

AR3039814

RREL Treatability Database Reference Number: •6B

Thomas, L.M., et. al., "Development Document for Effluent Limitations,Guidelines and Standards for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and SyntheticFibers Point Source Category", EPA Report, Report No. EPA 440/1-87/009,Washington, D.C. (October 1987).

The EPA Database used to develop the regulations in the above report wasused for this, activity with some changes in the editing rules. Only paired(influent/effluent) data sets were used and the influent concentration hadto be 20 ug/L or the detection limit (if greater than 20 ug/L) for theorganics.

No engineering information is available for these plants.

*END OF DATA*

AR3Q3985

RREL Treatability Database Reference Number: . 49E

' ee, Y.S. and J.V. Hunter, "Effect of Ozonation and Chlorination:>n Environmental Protection Agency Priority Pollutants", presented at the 5th

on Water Chlorination, Chapter 116, pp 1515-1526 (1985).

chemical oxidation tests were conducted on 75 of thepriority pollutants, one at a time, using ozone and sodiumlypochlorite. Samples were withdrawn at intervals of 0.25, 0.5,L.O and 2.0 hours with the results at 1.0 hour reported herein. Thesample and oxidant conditions were as follows:

Compound Ozone* Chlorine*Cone. Dosage Dosage

- Group (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)

Purgeables 10 7.5 38.5Base-neutrals 110 21.3 45.5Phenols 667 28.2 45.5

* Cl runs labeled Bl and ozone runs-B2.

*END OF DATA*

AR303986


DICHLOROETHANE,1,1

S NO.: 75-34-3

MPOUND TYPE: HYDROCARBON,HALOGENATED

RMULA: C2 H4 CL2


MOLECULAR WEIGHT: 98.96 333AMELTING POINT (C): -97.0 333ABOILING POINT (C): 57.3 333AVAPOR PRESSURE 8 T(C),, TORR: 234 @ 25 463ASOLUBILITY IN WATER @ T(C), MG/L: 5500 @ 20 463ALOG OCTANOL/WATER PARTITION .COEFFICIENT: 1.79 338DHENRY'S LAW CONSTANT, ATM x M3 MOLE-1: 3.45 E-3 @ 25 191D


NONCARCINOGENIC SYSTEMIC TOXICITY " NAESTIMATES FOR CARCINOGENS NA

DRINKING WATER HEALTH ADVISORIES/STANDARDS NAWATER QUALITY CRITERIA 345BAQUATIC TOXICITY DATABASE 5B

.EUNDLICH ISOTHERM DATA

Ce X/MSORBENT MATRIX K . 1/N UNITS UNITS REF.

LTRASORB 300 . C 1.79 0.53 mg/L mg/gm 3BLTRASORB 400 C 64.6 0.706 ug/L ug/gm 79A

AR303987


DICHLOROETHANE,1,1-

CAS NO.: 75-34-3


TECHNOLOGY MATRIX SIC SCALE CONCENTRATION PERCENT ' REFERENCECODE ( ug/L ) REMOVAL

AL D F55 <10 (2) >88 IB -S-AS D P <2 (14) >97.5 240A -S-TF D P 7 (14) 91.3 240A -S-AirS GW P <0.3 (1) >97.5 222B —$AirS GW P 0.9 (1) 50 90D —$AirS+GAC GW Fl <1 (19) >97.4 229A ——GAC GW F2 <1.0 >80 1264B —$RO GW F2 3.0 95.4 250B ——AS SF F6 <10 (1) >78 245B ——AirS4-GAC SF F2 <1 >95.2 229A ——UVW03 (B) SF ' Bl <0.5 (1) >96.2 92D —$UVw03wH202 (B) SF B2 <0.5 (1) >96.2 92D —$UVWH202 SF PI 9.5 (1) 42 92D —$UVWH202 SF P2 <0.5 (1) >97.3 92D —$UVwH202 SF P3 2.7 (10) 87 92D —$



AL D P2 19 (14) 87 203A -S-AL D PI 45 (14) 69 203A -S-AS D P 8 (14) 94.4 203A -S-CAC D P. Ill (14) 23 203A -S-TF D P -94 (14) 35 203A -S-RO GW F3 64 89 250B ——AirS SF F6 <17 (5) >92.0 245B ——ChPt SF F6 210 (5) 21 245B ——Fil SF F6 210 (5) 0 245B ——PACT TSDF Bl <1 >99.84 46E ——

&R3Q3988


DICHLOROETHANE,1,1-

CAS NO. :

3CHNOLOGY

3lOx(Cl) (B)lOx(Oz) (B)irSAC0

ECHNOLOGY

75-34-3

INFLUENT

MATRIX

t

~ I 28SSSFSFSF

INFLUENT

I-IATRIX

CONCENTRATION

SIC SCALECODE

F35BlB2PBF4

CONCENTRATION

SIC SCALECODE


CONCENTRATION( ug/L )

<10 (2),9,000 (1)8,600 (1)630 (3)<184

-. >10-100 mg/LEFFLUENT


PERCENTREMOVAL

>99.900101475>99.96792.4

PERCENTREMOVAL

REFER]

6B49E49E

1362E1362E250B

REFERI

2NCE

— $--$

SNCE

28 Fl <10 (10) >99.909 251B V-$

4R303989


Cummins, M.D., "Field Evaluation of 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Removal by PackedColumn Air Stripping - Dedham, MA, August 1982", Internal Report, TSD, ODWEPA,- Cincinnati, OH.


Data collected at six air:water ratios ('5, to 80) with data on table forair:water ratio = 80, with liquid loading = 12 gpm/ft2 and air loading =120 scfm/ft2.

*END OF DATA*

JR303990

RREL Treatability Database Reference Number: 240A

iannah, S.A., B.M. Austern, A.E. Eralp and R.A. Dobbs, "Removal of OrganicToxic Pollutants by Trickling Filter and Activated Sludge", Journal WPCF,

, No. 7, pp 1281-1283 (July 198.8).

ttlBIKescription of the two pilot plants is given in Ref. 20'3A. The " 'activated sludge system was operated the same but the trickling filter wasoperated as a standard rate trickling filter with a flow = 0.32 gpm.Feed consisted of municipal wastewater spiked with the priority pollutantsof interest at about 100 ug/L.

Activated sludge had removals of: SS = 87%, COD = 72% and TKN = 77%.

Trickling filter system had removals of: SS = 92%-, COD = 69% and TKN = 34%.

Data available on concentrations of priority pollutants in secondarysludges.

*END OF DATA *

AR30399I


Cummins, M.D.,,"Field Evaluation of Packed Column Air Stripping - ValleyPark, MO, March 1985", Internal Report, TSD, ODW, EPA, Cincinnati, OH.

Pilot plant. 2 ft ID, 24 ft tall with 18 ft of 1 in. plastic saddles.. .Data collected at 10 depths for each run. Six runs with air:water ratiovaried from 0.9 to 39.

Data on table from air:water = 39 with liquid loading = 20 gpm/ft2.

*END OF DATA*

303992.


Malcolm Pirnie, '"Control of Volatile Organic Chemicals in Ground Water SupplySystem - Well No. 7", for Township of Fairfield, New Jersey (January 1983).

eHWTlflHnllot plant was 12 in. in diameter with an overall column height of 12-felUT It contained 9.5 ft of 2 in. Jaeger Tri-Packs packing material. Fifteenruns were conducted with the water flowrate varied from 15 to 36 gpm and theair:water ratio varied from 20:1 to 80:!„ The run included herein was at 17gpm with an air:water ratio = 70:1.

*END OF DATA*

AR303993


Mclntyre, G.T., N.N. Hatch, Jr., S.R. Gelman and T.J. Peschman, "Designand Performance of a Groundwater Treatment System for Toxic OrganicsRemoval", Journal WPCF, Vol. 58, No. 1, pp 41-46 (January 1986).

The full-scale treatment system consisted of an air stripper followed bymulti-media filters (to remove oxidized iron) and three granular activatedcarbon units operated in series.

Air stripping towerDia. = 4 ftHt = 42 ftPacking ht = 24 ftMedia = 3.5 in. dia. polyethyleneDesign flow " = 150 gpra (12 gpm/ft2)Air:water ratio = 200 (approx.)

Carbon Beds (3 in series)L X W X Ht = 15.5 ft X 4.5 ft x 4.5 ftCarbon = 8000 Ib. eachHydraulic loading = 3 gpm/ft2EBCT = 15 min/bed

All effluent concentrations were N.D.

*END OF DATA*

HR30399U

RREL Treatability Database • Reference Number: 1264B

\nderson, M., R.A. Gottler and G.E. Bellen, "Point-of-Use TreatmentTechnology to Control Organic and Inorganic Contaminants", Proceedings of

on Experience with Groundwater Contaminants,. Dallas, TX, .(1984). '

Several communities using point-of-use (POU) treatment technologies fordrinking water contaminant removal were studied. The technologiesevaluated were granular activated carbon devices (for organics removal) andreverse osmosis devices (fluoride removal). Each of the communities' watersupply system and POU are described.

Capital and O&M costs are also presented.

*END OF DATA* -'

AR303995


Whittaker, H., "Applications Testing with the Environment Canada MobileOsmosis Unit", River Road Environmental Technology Centre, Ottawa, OntarioEnvironment Canada (December 1988).

This paper summarizes a series of RO studies on various types of wastewatestreams using two different units. The first unit (listed as full-scale)consisted of two parallel banks each containing two RO elements. Thesystem could be operated at 400-1000 psi and had a nominal capacity ofabout 2000 L/hr. For most of the studies more than one type of membranewas evaluated but only the data from one membrane are included herein.

The smaller unit (pilot plant) contained from one to five membrane elementswith a 4 in. by 40 in. size (same size elements as in full scale units).

Generally only concentration data are provided; ususally the operatingparameters are not provided.

Run Fl treated a groundwater contaminated with a PCB spill.

Run PI treated water collected from fighting a fire at apesticide warehouse.

Run F2 and F3 treated a groundwater contaminated with alandfill leachate in 1984 and 1986, respectively.

Run F4 treated a superfund wastewater (leachate) at thePollution Abatement Services site in Oswego, N.Y.

Run P2 treated collected spills and leaks from a TorontoShell Canada Distribution Terminal.

Run F5 treated wastewater from a railroad hopper car washfacility.

*END OF DATA*

&R303996I

Treatability Database Reference Number: 245B

E.G. Jordan Co., "Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, andLiability Act (CERCLA) Site Discharges to Publicly Owned Treatment Works

Guidance Manual", O.W. EPA, Washington D,C. (November 1989).

and untreated (not included herein) wastewaters from severalCERCLA sites were sampled. No operational/design information provided.Sites with treatment included:

SampleNo. Site Matrix Duration* Treatment

Fl Love Canal HL 1 G GACF2 Stringfellow SF (GW) - l G ChPt+Fil+GACF3 Bridgeport Rental SF (HL). 1 G API+DAF+Fil+GACF4 Verona Well Fields SF (GW) 5 C GAC+AirSF5 Reilly Tar SF (GW) 5 C Fil+GACF6 Sylvester SF (GW) 5 C ChPt+Fil+AirS+ASF7 Tyson's Dump SF (GW) 5 C AirSF8 Stringfellow SF (GW) 5 C ChPt+Fil+GAC

* 1 G = 1 set of grab samples5 C = 5 sets of composite samples

*END OF DATA*

RR303997


Hannah, S.A., B.M. Austern, A.E. Eralp and R.H. Wise, "Comparative Removalof Toxic Pollutants by Six Wastewater Treatment Processes", Journal WPCF,Vol. 58, No. 1, pp 27-34 (January-1986).

Activated Sludge Pilot Plant (1.5 gpm)Primary Clarifier

HRT =3.2 hoursOverflow rate =12.4 m3/m2-d

Aeration BasinsMLSS = 2000 mg/L (approx.)HRT =7.5 hoursSRT = 7 daysF/M = 0.5 kg COD/kg MLSS-day

Secondary Clarifier = N.A.

High Rate Trickling Filter (1.5 gpm)Primary Clarifier

Same as for A.S.Filter

Media = 1.5 to 3 in. crushed slagSurface loading =12.4 m3/m2-dVolumetric loading =6.6 m3/m3-d

Secondary Clarifier: N.A.

Chemical Assisted ClarificaLion (2 gpm)Rapid Mix

HRT =48 secondsFlocculation

HRT =52 minutesClarifier

Overflow rate =15.2 m3/m2-d :Chemical feed = 250 mg/L of alum

Aerated Lagoon (P-l)Depth = 1.2 mVolume = 4 . 8 m3HRT =6.4 days

Faculative Lagoon (P-2)Depth = 1. 2 mVolume = 4 .8' m3HRT =26.5 days

The four biological pilot plants were operated 30 days beforesampling was initiated (8-month study).

Influent COD averaged 344 mg/LCOD removals averaged:

Activated sludge = 83%Trickling filter = 40%Clarification (w chem.) = 49%Aerated lagoon = 60%Facultative lagoon = 65%

*END OF DATA*

RR303998

RREL Treatability Database Reference Number: 46E-

Dietrich, M.J., W.M. Copa, A.K. Chowdhury and T.L. Randall, "Removal ofPollutants from Dilute Wastewater by the PACT Treatment Process",

mmental Progress, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp 143-149 (May 1988).Snj fripiStSBPriStraBKries of several bench-scale PACT treatability studies are presented.(Additional studies in Ref. 68 and 242).31 - Pond wastewater from a comraerical TSDF

HRT =2.3 days, SRT = 5.8, Carbon Dose = 2270 mg/LInfl. BOD = 5150 mg/L and Eff. BOD = 16 mg/L

34 - Shale oil retort wastewaterHRT ='5.0 days, SRT = 9.4 days, Carbon Dose = 4260 mg/LInfl. BOD = 6220 mg/L and Eff. BOD = 27 mg/L

85 - (Activated sludge unit in parallel with B4 PACT unit)HRT =4.9 days, SRT =9.0 daysInfl. BOD = 6220 mg/L and Eff. BOD = 650 mg/L

B6 - Metal coating line wastewaterHRT =4.2 days, SRT =19.3 days, Carbon Dose = 1140 mg/LInfl. BOD = 3990 mg/L and Eff. BOD = 18 mg/L

B7 - Metal coating line wastewaterHRT =4.2 days, SRT = 14.8 days, Carbon Dose = 1910 mg/LInfl. BOD = 3680 mg/L and Eff. BOD - <6 mg/L

B8 - Hazardous waste landfill leachate !HRT = 1.0 days, SRT = 11.2 days, Carbon Dose = 2420 mg/LInfl. BOD = 1538 mg/L and Eff. BOD = <8 mg/L

Pharmaceutical production wastewaterHRT =5.3 days, SRT = 31.7 days, Carbon Dose = 2440 mg/LInfl. BOD = 3210 mg/L and Eff. BOD = <36 mg/L ;

*END OF DATA*

&R303999


'Anderson, M.A., A.L. Udin and E.K. Demos, "Containment, Treatment andDisposal of Contaminated Ground Water at a Superfund Site in Colorado",Presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Section AWWA,in Keystone, CO (1984).Air stripping and GAC treatability studies were conducted on groundwaterfrom the Lowry Landfill superfund site in the Denver area. The air-stripping unit was dia. =4 in. ID, 5 feet long glass column containing 5feet of Rashig Rings. It was operated at 1 gpm/ft2 with air:waterflow ratios from 50:1 to 500:1. Data reported herein for air:water ratioof 50:1.

The GAC unit consisted of 3 columns in series (dia. = 1 in.) with 3 ft, 2ft, and 1 ft of GAC in the 3 columns, respectively. It was operated at 1and 2 gpm/ft2. and the breakthrough patterns for DCA and TCA werefollowed for the various bed depths. Both were removed to less than 1 ppbuntil breakthrough started.*END OF DATA*

RR3Q4QOQ

Treatability Database Reference Number: 25IB

Sranscome, M., C. Alien, S. Harkins, K. Leese and B.L. Blaney, "Field\ssessment of Steam Stripping Volatile Organics From Aqueous Waste

Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual. Research Symposium; LandRemedial Action, Incineration and Treatment of Hazardous Wastes,No. -EPA 600/9-87/015, Cincinnati, OH (July 1987): ' '

Two full-scale steam strippers were each sampled 5 times/day over a 2-dayperiod. The first one (Fl) treated wastewater from the production ofathylene dichloride and vinyl chloride monomer using a tray column (sizenot provided). Steam usage averaged 6.2 kg steam/kg of VO removed or 0.036•eg steam/kg of wastewater treated.

The second unit (a packed column) treated wastewater from the production ofcaethylene chloride, carbon tetrachloride and chloroform (F2) . Steamusage averaged 0,. 1 kg steam/kg of wastewater treated.The condensate from Fl is returned to the production process. For F2 thecondensate is separated in a decanter with the aqueous returned to thestripper and the organic layer recycled to the production process.

*END OF DATA* * .

EL Treatability Database Ver No. 4..0 03/25/93

TRI CHLORO ETHANE, 1 , 1 , 1-

S NO. : 71-55-6

MPOUND TYPE: HYDROC ARBON, HALOGENATED

RMULA: C2 H3 CL3

EMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES - REF.

MOLECULAR WEIGHT: 133.40 333AMELTING POINT (C): -30.4 333ABOILING POINT (C) : 74.1 333AVAPOR PRESSURE @ T(C), TORR: 100 @ 20 333ASOLUBILITY IN WATER @ T(C), MG/L: 4400 @ 20 463ALOG OCTANOL/WATER PARTITION COEFFICIENT: 2.47 1226AHENRY'S LAW CONSTANT, ATM X M3 MOLE-1: 4.08 E-3 S 25 191D


NONCARCINOGENIC SYSTEMIC TOXICITY 4BESTIMATES FOR CARCINOGENS NA

DRINKING WATER HEALTH ADVISORIES/STANDARDS 346BV7ATER QUALITY CRITERIA 4BAQUATIC TOXICITY DATABASE 5B


CeI X/MSORBENT MATRIX . K 1/N UNITS UNITS REF.

LTRASORB 300 C 2.48 .0.34 mg/L mg/gm 3BLTRASORB 400 C ' 1240 0.47 ug/L ug/gm . 73ALTRASORB 400 C 335 0.531 ug/L '. ug/gm 79A


TRICHLOROETHANE,1,1,1-

CAS NO.: 71-55-6



AL D F55 <10 (5) >90.0AS D F 21 (6) 79AS D F12 10 (4) 89AS D F17 <1 (5) >98.4AS D F3 <10 (4) >84AS D F14 <5 (4) >95.0AS D F57 <8 (3) >84AS D F25 10 (5) 81AS D F4 <1 (7) >92.3AS D Fl 2.9 (3) 77AS D F3 <1 (7) >92.3AS D F3 1.0 (7) 97.6AS D F6 <1.3 (7) >73AS ' D F5 <1,3 (7) >88AS D F2 2.2 (3) 85AS D F4 <1.3 (7) >76AS D F7 <9 (5) >84AS D F19 30 (6) 39AS D F36 2 (3) 95.8AS D F20 <2 (3) >95.8AS D F31 4 (3) 88AS D F59 7 (3) 83AS D F18 12 (4) 87AS D F2 1.5 (10) 93.2AS D F15 1.4 (10) 94.6AS D F30 1.1 (10) 94.9 •AS D F6 '1.7 (10) 96.3AS D F29 5.1 (12) 94.4AirS D Fl ' 0.09 (7) 90.4AirS , D F2 0'.43 (11) 90.9CAC D F 17 (3) 19ChPt D Fl 0.94 (7) 80GAC D F <0.24 >99.00RO' D P ' 0.05 98.2Sed D F4 21 (10) 63TF D F2 <1 (7) >50TF D F40 2 (5) 92.6TF D F17 5 (5) ' 92.2AirS GW P <0.5 (1) >96.7AirS GW P <0.5 (1) >97.5•AirS GW PI 3.0 92.9AirS GW P <0.3 (1) >97.0AirS GW P <l (1) >98.8AS I 28 F5 <1 (1) >97.8AS+AS I 26 F 0.10 (6) 17PACT I 28 F8 7 (1) 61SS+GAC I 28 F27 <10 (3) >76Sed I 49 Fl 1.4 0R9 S P 2 (1) 97.8AirS , SF F4 <10 (5) >52

SF PI 14 (l)

SF '. P2 <0.5 (1) >97.8 . 92D —$

- - i., -- -::|T B 30 40 1138E ——TSDF F4 <2 (1) >94.1 , 28BVS-

AR3QI4QOL*



CAS NO.: 71-55-6



AS D PI <8 (5) >97.2 2"41B VS-AS D . F 0.27 99.73 .1587E •—-A S D P <0.3 (-20) >99.77 206B V S -AS D F37 12 (6) 90.0 IB -S-AS D F4 100 (5) 70 IB -S-AS D F6 54 (5) 89 IB -S-AS D F60 28 (6) 94.3 , IB -S-AS D F38 5 (6) 96.2 IB -S-TF D F37 2 (6) 98.3 IB -S-TF D Fil 13(6) 92.4 IB -S-AirS GW P 1.7 (1) 99.50 211B —$AirS GW P 1.1 (1) 99.75 222B —$AirS GW PI 12 89 812E ——AirS GW P 7 (1) 96.8 90D —$GAC GW P <1.0 >99.05 812E :——GAC GW F3 <1.0 >96.6 1264B —GAC GW F2 <1.0 >99.35 1264B -*RO GW F3 ' 10 93.8 250BAS I 28 Fl <10 (3) >98.9 ' 6BAS I 28 F4 <4 >98.1 975B --$AS I 28 F13 <10 (1) >97.3 87B ——AirS I U P 7 96.8 205E ——ChOx (Cl) I 28 F26 <10 (1) >94.9 87B ——Sed + As I 28 F28 <10 (3) >92.8 87B ——PACT RCRA ' B 25 • 93.8 242E ——AS SF F6 <10 (1) >93.3 245B ——AirS SF F6 <38 (5) >93.7 ' 245B ——ChPt SF F6 620 (5) 34 245B ——Fil SF F6 600 (5) 2 245B -~GAC SF . F4 90 (5) 75 245B ——RO SF F4 36 95.6 250B ——

RREL Treatability Database Ve.r. No. 4.0 03/25/93


"GAS NO . :

ECHNOLOGY

SSirSirS:hOx(Cl) (B):h0x(0z) (B)iirSril+GAC3ACT

ECHNOLOGY

sdflhr'A<Hr

ECHNOLOGY

Ox.S

71-55-6

INFLUENT

MATRIX

DDGWGWSSSFTSDFTSDF

INFLUENT

MATRIX

I 28SF

INFLUENT

MATRIX^

RCRAS

CONCENTRATION

SIC SCALECODE

F28FlFP2BlB2

• PF3Bl

CONCENTRATION

"SIC SCALECODE

F35B

CONCENTRATION

SIC SCALECODE

FB



850 (6)<1.3 (7)0.2499,200 (1)9,200 (1)130 (3)<1,300 (2)<3-



<10 (2)<1

>100-1000 mg/EFFLUENT

CONCENTRATION( mg/L )

0.401.6

i •'

PERCENT -REMOVAL

87>99.8899,98495.98.08.097.8>36>99.980

PERCENTREMOVAL

>99.941>99,991

'L

PERCENTREMOVAL

99.95598.6

REFERENCE

IB -S-234A ——1344E - — '812E ——49E ——49E ——

1362E — $28B VS-46E ——

REFERENCE

6B ——1362E — $

REFERENCE

242E - —202D VS-

A-R30V006


Namkung, E. and B.E. Rittmann, "Estimating Volatile Organic Compound Emissiorfrom Publicly Owned Treatment Works", Journal WPCF, Vol. 59,No. 7, pp 670-678 (July 1987).

Data from two full-scale plants in Chicago

Plant F-l is Calumet WWTPFlow = 229 mgdAir:water ratio = 5.5 m3 air/m3 water -HRT =5.1 hoursSRT =5.5 daysMLSS = 2770 mg/L

Plant F-2 is West-southwest WWTPFlow =836 mgd•Air:water ratio = 5.3 m3 air/m3 'waterHRT =6.1 hoursSRT =6.7 daysMLSS = 2510 mg/L

*END OF DATA*

AR30t*007

Treatability Database Reference Number: 86B

^anviro Consultants, "Thirty Seven Municipal Water Pollution ControlPlants, Pilot Monitoring Study, Volume I - Interim Report," Ontario4ij|;ry of the Environment, Water Resources Branch, Report No. ISBND-i K-4900-X (December 1988) .

Thirty - seven Ontario, Canada POTWs were sampled and each sample wasanalyzed for all of the contaminants on a list established for this studythat included 144 organic contaminants, 15 metals and conventionalcontaminants. The results reported herein are based upon geometric meansvith all results below the detection limit (DL) assumed to be one half ofthe DL. Reference contains information on tank sizes, flows, etc., forall 37 plants,

*Mean Eff. (mg/L)

Plant Name Treatment BOD SS

Fl Belle River (Maidstone) AS 4.9 8.1F2 Brant ford AS 25 7.9F3 Burlington (Skyway) AS 36 20F4 Cornwall Sed 59 36F5 Grimsby (Baker Road) AS 19 11F6 Guelph AS 26 15F7 Hamilton (Woodward) AS 20 6.9F8 Kingston City Sed 50 18F9 Kingston Twp« AS 8.1 4.3FlO Kitchener AS 22 4.8Fil Lindsay Lagoon AL 17 21F12 London (Greenway) AS 27 11Fl_MLpndon (Pottersburg) AS 21 7.3FM^BLssissauga (Clarkson) AS 20 11Fl BLSsissauga (Lakeview) AS 24 25F16 Moore (Corunna) AS 41 11F17 Niagara Falls (Stamford) RBC 18 14F18 Niagara-on-the-Lake Lagoon AL 41 '41F19 Oakville (Southeast) 'AS 15 10F20 Ottawa (Green Creek) Sed 22 18F21 Paris .AS 24 2-9F22 Peterborough - AS 23 '7.4F23 Pickering (Duffin Creek) AS 23 21F24 Sarnia Sed 20 22F25 Sault Ste. Marie (East) Sed 79 37F26 Sault Ste. Marie (West) AS -11 8.6F27 Sudbury AS 46 . : ' 11F28 Thunder Bay Sed 108 78F29 Toronto (Highland Creek) AS 26 17F30 Toronto (Humber) AS 24 20F31 Toronto (Main) AS 23 11F32 Toronto (North) AS ' 27 7.8F33 Waterloo AS 13 : 7.3F34 Wallaceburg AS 9.7 6.4F35 Windsor (Little River) AS 33 6.8F36 Windsor (Westerly) Sed 45 22F37 Whitby (Pringle Creek #1) AS 34 5.5

* Geometric means

F DATA*


Brisbin, T.D., S.H. Ann, R.I. Foster, S.A. Labunski and J.A Oliva,"Priority Pollutants in the Cedar Creek Wastewater Reclamation-RechargeFacilities", EPA Report No. EPA 600/2-84-061, Cincinnati,-OH (February1984) .The Cedar Creek Wastewater Reclamation Plant (CCWRP), Nassau County, NewYork, is a 5.5 mgd AWT plant producing an effluent for groundwater recharge.Following bar screens, comminutors and grit removal a constant 5.5 mgd istreated by the CCWRP. An average 105 mg/L of lime is added to the primaryclarification step to increase the pH to 9.0 - 9.3. Next is two-stagebiological treatment with a detention time of 5.9 hours in the first stagefor carbon oxidation-nitrification. Methanol is added to the second stage(denitrification) with a detention time of 2 hours. This is followed bydual-media filtration, carbon adsorption and chlorination.Three sets of composite samples were taken of the raw and after eachtreatment process and they were analyzed for the priority pollutants.

*END OF DATA*

&R304009

?REL Treatability Database Reference Number: 1421D .

Summers, R.S. and P.V. Roberts, "Dynamic Behavior of Organics in Full-scaleGranular Activated-carbon Columns", Advances in Chemistry Series, No. 202,

n, D.C., pp 503-523 (1983).

ThSBIall-scale-GAC columns at the Santa Clara Valley Water • • •District's Palo Alto Reclamation Facility were sampled for over six months.3ach of the columns (3 operated in parallel) is operated upflow at a rateDf 4.4 gpm/ft2 (0.5 mgd) which results in an empty-bed contact time of34 min. The data reported herein are averages for columns starting withfresh carbon for throughputs of 13,000 bed volumes.

*END OF DATA*

AR30WIO


Argo, D.R., "Use of Lime Clarification and Reverse Osmosis in WaterReclamation", Journal WPCF, Vol. 56, No. 12, pp 1238-1246 (December 1984).

A 5000 gpd pilot plant consisting of CAC using lime and a polymer fplloweby reverse osmosis was used to treat the activated sludge effluent fromWater Factory 21 in Orange County, CA. The RO pilot plant had 39 m2 ofactive membrane area composed of aromatic polyamide cast on a polyesternonwoven fabric support material (Film Tec). The pilot plant was operatedat 250 psi with the initial flux =14.2 gpd/ft2. During the 10,000 hrs ofoperation (19 months) the average flux was 7.14 gpd/ft2 with the systemsalt rejection averaging between 97 to 98%.

Data are compared to full-scale reclamation plant and economics areprovided. (The effluent concentrations arid percent removals are based ongeometric means.) .

*END OF DATA*

&R30UOH

RREL Treatability Database Reference Number: 219BCummins, M.D., "Field Evaluation of Trichloroethylene Removal by PackedColumn Air Stripping - Hartland, WI, September. 1982", Internal Report, TSD,Column Air Stripping

Cincinnati, OH.

plant as for Ref. 207B.Data collected at-six air:water ratios (5 to 84) with data on table forair:water ratio *= 43 with liquid loading = 17 gpm/ ft2 and air loading =n n . . i^___ / _*? J_ r*. '-98 scfm/ft2.

*END OF DATA*


Cummins, M.D., "Field Evaluation of Packed Column Air Stripping - ValleyPark, MO, March 1985", Internal Report, TSD, ODW, EPA, Cincinnati, OH.

Pilot plant 2 ft ID, 24 ft tall with 18 ft of-1 in. plastic saddles.Data collected at 10 depths for each run. Six runs with air:water ratiovaried from 0.9 to 39.


*END OF DATA*

AR30UOI3


Kelleher, D.L., E.L. Stover and M. Sullivan, "Investigation of VolatileOrganics Removal111, Journal of New England Water Works Assoc., Vol. 95,

pp 119-133 (February 1980) . -plant studies were conducted on water from two wells by Dedham (MA)

Water Company. The air stripping pilot plant was 4 in. I.D., 40 in. highand contained 25 in. of 6 mm glass raschig rings. It was operated at 0.060to 1.68 gpm (20 runs) with the air to water ratio varied from 2.1 to 223:1.The two PI runs were on well No. 4, the first one at 0.29 gpm with a ratioof 48.1:1 (eff 12 ppb) and the second at 0.23 gpm with a ratio of 38.5:1(eff 3.0 ppb). Run P2 was on well No. 3 at 0.06 gpm with a ratio of 114.

The carbon column pilot plant was four columns in series, 4 in. I.D. and 5ft long containing 2 ft of Filtrasorb per column (contact time of 7.5 minper column) . It was operated for ,72 days and the TCEA concentration wasmonitored on the effluent from each column (no breakthough on last column) .

A pilot column containing manganese greensand was used (ion exchangeprocess) to remove manganese.

*END OF DATA*

RREL Trea-Lability Database Reference Number: 21 IB

Cummins, M.D., "Field Evaluation of Packed Column Air Stripping - TwinCities Army Ammunition Plant, June 1983", Internal Report, TSD, ODW, EPA,Cincinnati, OH. f - -


Operated at four air:water ratios (15-40) and four air pressure dropgradients. Data obtained on two different wells.

Data in table for air:water ratio = 44 and air pressure drop of 1/16 in.of water per ft of column height.

*END OF DATA*

AS 30 1015


Leuenberger, C., W. Giger, R. Coney, J.W. Graydon and E. Molnar-Kubica,"Persistent Chemicals in Pulp Mill Effluents - Occurrence and Behavior in

vated Sludge Treatment Plant", Water Research, Vol. 19, No. 7, pp .(1985) .

Data from a two-stage activated process at Swiss pulp mill, CelluloseAttisholz Corp., a 10'0,000 tons of pulp per year (sulphite process) plant.No design/operational information provided.

*END OF DATA*

AR30UOI6


Sorg,T.J. and O.T. Love, Jr., "Reverse Osmosis Treatment to ControlInorganic and Volatile Organic Contamination", Proceedings from AWWASeminar, Dallas, TX, pp 73-92 (June 1984).

Data are reported for parts of several studies. ' Data included herein forFilmtec FT-30, thin film composite spiral wound R.O. pilot plant operatedon distilled water spiked with VOCs. The unit had a surface area = 25ft2, operated at 200 psi with a flow rate = 11 L/min (permeate = 1.5L/min, reject = 9.5 L/min). Samples were taken after 1, 3, £, 9 and 21hours of operation-with declining removals (with time) for most of VOCs.

Data herein for samples taken after 21 hours.

*END OF DATA*

RREL Treatability Database Reference Number: 1138E?rischherz, H., F. Ollram, F. Scholler and E. Schmidt, "Reaction Products

Halogenated Hydrocarbons Resulting from UV-Treatment", WaterVol. 4, No. 3, pp 167-171 (1986).

UV-radiation tests were conducted using a tap water spiked withorganics of interest. The radiation chamber was 5 L and lamp output was 15tf. Samples were taken at 5, 30 and 60 minutes with data reported hereinfor 60 minutes.

%

*END OF DATA* •

AR30UOI8

Treatability Database Ver No. 4.0 03/25/93

TRICHLOROETHYLENE

; NO.: 79-01-6

1POUND TYPE: HYDROCARBON,HALOGENATED

<miLA: C2 H CL3

2MICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES REF.

MOLECULAR WEIGHT: 131.39 . 333AMELTING POINT (C): -84.8 2031ABOILING POINT (C): 86.7* 2031AVAPOR PRESSURE @ T(C), TORR: 77 @ 25 1006ASOLUBILITY IN WATER @ T(C), MG/L: 1100 @ 25 463ALOG OCTANOL/WATER PARTITION COEFFICIENT: 2.53 1032AHENRY'S LAW CONSTANT, ATM X M3 MOLE-1: 1.17 E-2 @ 25 191D

•v ',

7IRONMENTAL DATA REF.

NONCARCINOGENIC SYSTEMIC TOXICITY NAESTIMATES FOR CARCINOGENS 4B

DRINKING WATER HEALTH ADVISORIES/STANDARDS 346BWATER QUALITY CRITERIA ' 4B .AQUATIC TOXICITY DATABASE 5B

3UNDLICH ISOTHERM DATA .

Ce :. X/M3ORBENT MATRIX K 1/N UNITS UNITS REF.

LTRASORB 400 C 3390 0.416 ug/L ug/gm 73A3TVACO WV-G C 3260 0.407 ug/L ug/gm 73A.3TVACO WV-W C 1060 0.500 ug/L . ug/gm 73ADRODARCO 3000 C • 713 0.470 ug/L ug/gm 73ALTRASORB 300 C 28.0 0.62 mg/L mg/gm 3BLTPASORB 400 C 36.3 -0.592 mg/L .mg/gm 1028DLTRASORB 400 C 45 0.625 mg/L .mg/gm 68iDLTFASORB 400 • C . 2 . 0 0 0.482 ug/L mg/gm 79A

AR30UOI9


TRICHLOROETHYLENE . . .

GAS NO.: 79-01-6



AS D F9 <5 (4) >89 IB -S-AS D F37 2 (6) 97.6 IB -S-AS D F3 <0.7 (7) >71 234A——AS D F2 2.1 (3) 90.6 238A ——AS D F 13 (6) '87 201B -S-AS D F5 <2.5 (7) >58 375E -S-AS D F5 16 (5) 72 IB -S-AS D . F5 <0.7 (7) >92.3 234A ——AS D F20 <1 (6) >96.7 • IB -S-AS D F <0.1 >95.7 1587E ——AS D F10 <1 (5) >98.5 IB -S-AS D Fl 0.5 (3) 94.8 238A ——AS D Fl 4 (4) 89.7 IB -S-AS D F12 1.3 (10) 95.4 86B -S-AS D F29 1.1 (12) 96.7 86B -S-AS D F22 4.5 (10) 76 86B -S-AirS D F2 <0.2 (4) >77 1682BAirS D Fl 0.013 (7) 93.8 1682B ,{CAC+AirS D F 0.2 (20) 90.0 183"3DChPt D Fl 0.21 (7) 77 1682B ---GAC D F <0.02 >99.73 1421D ——TF D . F10 <1 (5) >98.5 IB -S-TF D F24 <1 (5) >98.4 IB -S-TF • D Fil 5 (6) 93.2 IB -S-TF D F37 <1 (6) >98.8 IB -S-AirS GW F 0.3 99.68 1042E —$AirS GW PI " 3.0 93.2 369A ——AirS GW P 0.4 (1) 99.60 212B .— $AirS GW F 1.4 98.1 69A —$AirS GW P <0.3 (1) >99.21 222B —$AirS GW P <0.5 (1) >98.7 207B ——AirS GW PI 4.3 87. 1327E —$AirS GW P <0.5 (1) >98.0 215B —$AirS GW P <0.5 (1) >99.44 221B —$AirS GW F <0.5 (1) >98.2 223B —$AirS GW P 0.7 (1) 99.03 208B —$AirS GW PI 4.3 (1) 87 1585E ——ChOx(H202wOz) GW P2 3.7 (4) 96.2 84A —$GAC GW F4 1.3 98.6 1264B —$GAC GW Fl <1.0 >98.8 1264B —$RO GW F2 5.5 79 250B ——AS I 28 ' .Fl <5 (1) >90.7 32B ——AS I 28 F32 <10 (5) >89 6B ——AirS I U P <1 >97.2 205E ——PACT I 28 F8 5 (1) 75 32BSS + GAC " I 28 . F27 <10 (1) >20 87BSed + AS I 28 F28 <10 (3) >47 87BPACT RCRA B <10 >89 242E ——AirS S P2 0.3 99.44 . ~ ry C\ 369A ——RO S P 68 (1) $R3Q4U£U 323B ——AS SF F6 <10 (1) cT8 245B ——

irS SF F7 <10 (5) >52 : 245.B ——7 7m T B 22 56 1138E ——il+GAC ' TSDF F4 <2 (1) . >73 ._ 28B VS-

RREL Treatability Database Ver. No1. 4.0 03/25/93

TRICHLOROETHYLENE

CAS NO.: 79-01-6



AS D P <1.5 (20) >98.6 206B VS-AS • D F14 <3 (4) >97.3 IB -S-AS D F6 64 (6) 87 IB -S-AS D F4 37 (6) 92.6 IB -S-AS D F38 2 (6) 99.23 IB -S-AS D F28 87 (6) 87 IB -S-AS D F12 31 (5) 74 IB -S-AS D PI 7 (5) 96.7 241B VS-Sed D F36 18 (5) 93.6 86B -S-TF D F39 <1 (5) >99.33 IB -S-AirS GW P 0.8 (1) 99.58 209B —$AirS GW P 3.1 (1) 98.6 211B —$AirS GW P 2.1 (1) 98.9 216B ——AirS GW F <4 >99.38 199B -*-$AirS GW P 0.5 (1) 99.58 219B —$AirS GW P <5 >97.1 1363E ——AirS GW P 27 87 26AAirS GW P 1.2 (1) 99.69 217BAirS GW F 0.46 (10) 99.913 322BAirS GW P 0.2 (1) 99.917 220B —'$AirS GW P 16 (1) 95.5 90D —$ChOx(H2O2wOz) GW PI 5.6 (1) 95.9 84A —$GAC GW F5 <1.0 >99.36 1264B —$RO GW F3 110 78 250B ——GAC HL F <10 (1) >95.8 237A ——GAC HL Fl <10 (1) >97.8 • 245B ——AS I 31 F2 7 (1) 98.6 31B ——AS I 28 F20 <10 (3) >94.1 6'B ——CAC I 31 F2 ' 500 (1) . 0 31B ——CAC I 28 F8 20' (1) 88 32B ——PACT I 31 Fl 5 (1) 95.2 . 31B ——A^rs S P <5 (1) >98.5 71D —$AirS SF F6 <25 (5) >93.6 • 245B ——ChPt SF F6 39.0 (5) 21 24 5B ——Fil SF F6 390 (5) 1 245B ——GAC SF F4 32 (5) 95.3 245B ——UVW03 (B) SF Bl. <0.5 (1) >99.69 92D —$UVW03WH202 (B) SF B2 <0.5 (1) >99.69 92D—$UVWH202 SF PI 2.4 (1) 99.13 92D —$UVWH202 SF P2 <0.5 (1) >99.87 92D —$UVWH202 SF P3 <0.6 (10) >99.89 92D —$UVWH202 (B) SF B3 <0.5 (1) >99.65 9TD —$PACT TSDF Bl <1 >99.69 ' 46E ——

RREL Treatability Database' Ver. No. 4.0 03/25/93

J TRICHLOROETHYLENE

CAS NO.: 79-01-6


ECHNOLOGY MATRIX SIC SCALE CONCENTRATION PERCENT REFERENCECODE ( ug/L ) REMOVAL . . .

GW F2 <12 (3) >99.60 87B —-GW P2 170 (1) 84 1585E ——GW F 11 (7) 99.77 "322B —$GW P2 190 91.3 1327E —$GW P 7.7 (1) 99.30 2.11B --$I 28 Fl <10 (10) >99.79 251B V-$I 28 F32 <16 (14) >99.20 6B ——I 28 F2 <5 (10) >99.911 ' 251B V-$

(B) S Bl 9,200 (1) 8.0 49E ——(B) S B2 9,500 (1) 5.0 49E —-

SF P <1 (3) >99.936 1362E —$SF F2 5,400 (1) 0 245B :——SF F8 3,700 (5) 30 245B ——SF F8 3,400 (5) 8 245B ——SF ' F2 <10 (1) >99.46 245B ——SF F8 <10 (5) >99.54 245B ——

• TSDF F3 <750 (2) >73 28B VS-

INFLUENT CONCENTRATION - >10-100 mg/LEFFLUENT ' . '

ECHNOLOGY • MATRIX SIC SCALE CONCENTRATION PERCENT REFERENCECODE ( ug/L ) REMOVAL

ACT HL B8 <5 >99.985 46E ——S I 28 F35 <10 (2) >99.974 6B ——S S . B 210 99.78 202D VS-

INFLUENT CONCENTRATION ->100-1000mg/LEFFLUENT • : ' ' • . '

ECHNOLOGY MATRIX SIC SCALE CONCENTRATION PERCENT REFERENCECODE ( mg/L ) REMOVAL

Ox (E) I U B2 2 (1) 99.33 78E ——Ox (B) I U B2 1.7 (1) 99.66 78E ' ——

RR30U023

RREL Treatability 'Database Reference Number: 46E-

Dietrich, M.J., W.M. Copa, A.K. Chowdhury and T.L. Randall, "Removal ofPollutants from Dilute Wastewater by the PACT Treatment Process",Environmental Progress, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp 143-149 (May 19881) .Summaries of several bench-scale PACT treatability studies are presented.(Additional studies in Ref. 68 and 242).

Bl - Pond wastewater from a commerical TSDFHRT =2.3 days, SRT = 5.8, Carbon Dose = 2270 mg/LInfl. BOD = 5150 mg/L and Eff. BOD = 16 mg/L

B4 - Shale oil retort wastewaterHRT =5.0 days, SRT =9.4 days, Carbon Dose = 4260 mg/LInfl. BOD = 6220 mg/L and Eff. BOD = 27 mg/L

B5 - (Activated sludge unit in parallel with B4 PACT unit)HRT =4.9 days, SRT =9.0 daysInfl. BOD = 6220 mg/L and Eff. BOD = 650 mg/L

B6 - Metal coating line wastewater.HRT =4.2 days, SRT = 19.3 days, Carbon Dose = 1140 mg/LInfl. BOD = 3990 mg/L and Eff. BOD = 18 mg/L

B7 - Metal coating line wastewaterHRT = 4.2 days, SRT = 14.8 days, Carbon Dose = 1910 mg/LInfl. BOD = 3680 mg/L and Eff. BOD = <6 mg/L

B8 - Hazardous waste landfill leachateHRT =1.0 days, SRT = 11.2 days, Carbon Dose = 2420 mg/LInfl. BOD = 1538 mg/L and Eff. BOD = <8 mg/L

B9 - Pharmaceutical production wastewaterHRT = 5.3 days, SRT = 31.7 days, Carbon Dose = 2440 mg/LInfl. BOD = 3210 mg/L and Eff. BOD = <36 mg/L

*END OF DATA*

RREL Treatability Database Reference Number: . 205E

Pekin, T. and A. Moore, "Air Stripping-of Trace Volatile Organics fromWastewater", Proceedings of the 37th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue

West Lafayette, IN (1982).

column was 10.5 ft high (7 ft of liquid) and 6.4 inches ID withwastewater flowrate of 0.16 gpm.

HRT =80 minutes (approx.)

Data on table from air:water ratio = 50. Other data available at air:waterratios from 22 to 125. Data also available on packed toweroperation.

*END OF DATA* ' ' -

AR30U025

RREL Treatability Database Reference Number: 21IB

Cummins, M.D., ."Field Evaluation of Packed Column Air Stripping - TwinCities Army Ammunition Plant, June 1983", Internal Report, TSD, ODW, EPA,Cincinnati, OH.


Operated at four air:water ratios (15-40) and four air pressure drop •gradients. Data obtained on two different wells.

Da£a in table for air:water ratio = 44 and air pressure drop of 1/16 in.of water per ft of column height.

*END OF DATA*

AR3QI4026

REL Treatability Database ' Reference Number: 812E

elleher, D.L., E.L. Stover and M. Sullivan, "Investigation of Volatilerganics Removal", Journal of New England Water Works Assoc. , Vol. 95,

pp 119-133 (February 1980) .

plant studies were conducted on water from two wells by Dedham (MA)ater Company. The air stripping pilot plant was 4 in. I.D., 40 in. highnd contained 25 in. of 6 mm glass raschig rings. It was operated at 0.060o 1.68 gpm (20 runs) with the air to water ratio varied from 2 . 1 to 223:1.he two PI runs were on well No. 4, the first one at 0.29 gpm with a ratiof 48.1:1 (eff 12 ppb) and the second at 0.23 gpm with a ratio of 38.5:1eff 3.0 ppb). Run P2 was on well No. 3 at 0.06 gpm with a ratio of 114.

'he carbon column pilot plant was four columns in series, 4 in. I.D. and 5t long containing 2 ft of Filtrasorb per column (contact time of 7.5 min>er column). It was operated for 72 days and the TCEA concentration waslonitored on the effluent from each column (no breakthough on last column) .

\ pilot column containing manganese greensand was used (ion exchangeorocess) to remove manganese.

*END OF DATA*

RREL Treatability Database' Reference Number: 1587A

Al-Dhowalia, K.H., "Trace Volatile Organics from Water and Wastewater byAir Stripping", A Thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate Schoolof the University of Colorado (January 1982) .

Data presented herein for the Denver CO wastewater treatment plant.Percent removal from primary effluent to secondary effluent beforechlorination. No operational information provided.

*END OF DATA*

RR30U028

EL Treatability Database Ver No. 4.0 ... 03/25/93

TOLUENE

S NO.: 108-88-3

MPOUND TYPE: AROMATIC,HYDROCARBON

RMULA: ' C7 H8

:EMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES -REF.

MOLECULAR WEIGHT: 92.14 333AMELTING POINT (C): -95 . 333ABOILING POINT (C):.110.6 • 333AVAPOR PRESSURE @ T(C), TORR: 28 @ 25 462ASOLUBILITY IN WATER @ T(C), MG/L: 515 @ 20 ' 463ALOG OCTANOL/WATER PARTITION COEFFICIENT: 2.69 163AHENRY'S LAW CONSTANT, ATM X M3 MOLE-1: 5.92 E-3 @ 25 191B

FVIRONMENTAL DATA REF.

«NIC NONCARCINOGENIC SYSTEMIC TOXICITY . 4BESTIMATES FOR CARCINOGENS NA

DRINKING WATER HEALTH ADVISORIES/STANDARDS 346BWATER QUALITY CRITERIA 4BAQUATIC TOXICITY DATABASE 5B

IEUNDLICH ISOTHERM DATA ' ' ' '

Ce X/M)SORBENT MATRIX K 1/N UNITS UNITS REF.

ILTRASORB 300. f C 26.1 0.44 mg/L mg/gm ' 3BTDRODARCO C 40.2 0.35 mg/L mg/gm 780B.ILTRASORB 400 C 0.090 0.30 mg/L. . mg/mg 12AILTRASORB 400 C 5.01 0.429 ug/L mg/gm 79A

RREL Treatability Database Ver. No. 4.0 03/25/93i - '

TOLUENE

CAS NO.: 108-88-3



AS ' D F19 2 (5) 97.1 IB -S-AS D F31 4 (5) 88 IB -S^AS D F4 <1 (4) >98.0 IB -S-AS D F12 3 (4) 90.6 IB -S-AS D Fl 6.2 (3) 92.7 238A ——AS D F17 2 (5) 97.6 IB -S-AS D F6 0.7 (7) 97.1 234A -—AS D Fl 4 (4) 86 IB -S-AS D F4 <0.2 (7) >96.2 234A ——AS D F5 <1 (6) >97.3 IB -S-AS D F18 <1 (5) >97.4 IB -S-AS D F3 <0.2 (7) >96.9 234A ---AS D Fl <0.2 (7) >97.7 234A ——AS • D F37 <2 (6) >96.3 IB -S-AS D F57 <3 (5) >94.0 IB -S-AS D F3 1 (1) 90.9 31B ——AS D F4 1 (1) 96.2 31BAS D F <0.1 >99.00 1587ECAC D F4 26 (1) 0 3 IBSed D F3 11 (1) 15 31B ——TF D F37 <1 (6) >98.2 IB -S-TF . D F17 10 (5) 88 IB -S-TF D Fil 7 (6) • 86 IB -S-TF D . F21 2 (5) 97.2 IB -S-AirS GW F <2.0 (5) >97.4 322B —$AirS GW F 0.94 97.0 69A —$AirS GW P <0.5 (1) >98.9 224B ~$AirS+GAC GW Fl <1 (19) >90.0 229A ——AL+AS I 31 F8 2 (1) 33 31B ——AS I 28 F7 <1 (1) >93.3 32B ——AS I 28 F25 <10 (3) >64 87B ——AS I 28 F31 <10 (1) >72 87B ——CAC I 31 F7 1 (1) 67 3IB ——CAC I '31 F6 4 (1) 0 31B ——CAC(B) I 49 Bl 1.5 (1) 17 638B ——GAC I 28 F4 <11 (2) >66 87B ——GAC I 28. F3 <10 (1) >33 87B ——GAC I 28 Fl <10 (1) >85 87B ——Sed t I 31 F8 3 (1) 83 31B ——Sed I 49 Fl 1.9 0 638B ——PACT RCRA B <5 >91.2 242E ——AirS SF P 1-7 (3) 95.3 1362E —$AirS+GAC SF F2 <1 >98.8 229A ——RO SP P2 12 86 250B ——Fil+GAC TSDF F4 <2 (2) >94.4 28B

AR3Q14030

.RREL Treatability Database Ver. No. 4;. 0 03/25/93

TOLUENE

CAS NO.: 108-88-3


3CHNOLOGY MATRIX SIC SCALE CONCENTRATION PERCENT REFERENCECODE ( ug/L ) REMOVAL

L D F55 <32 (6) >96.1 IB -S-3 D P. <0.6 (20) . >99.76 206B VS-3 D PI <4 (5) >98.6 241B VS-3 D F59 <12 (5) >96.8 IB -S-,S D F5 , <0.2 (7) >99.900 234A ——.S D F30 4 (6) 99.48 IB -S-.S D F .57 (32) 87 201B -S--S D F14 <4 (4) . >96.4 IB -S--S D F51 <10 (6) >96.4 IB -S-S D F6 20 (6) 89 IB -S-S D . F36 56 (5) 93.8 • IB -S-3 D F38 31 (6) 95.4 IB -S-F D F39 7 (4) 97.8 IB -S-L GW F2 <10 (3) >98.8 87B ——irS GW F <0.66 (24) >99.77 322B —$3 GW F3 20 92.5 250B ——L di^ I 28 F12 <10 (3) >98.2 6B •——L B^B I 28 Fil <40 (3) >85 87B ——5^^ I 31 F5 25 (1) 94.8 31B ——S I 28 F10 <10 (3) >94.4 6B ——S I 28 F5 <1 (1) >99.8"1 32B ——S I 28 F2 " 300 (1) 0 32B ——S I .28 F3 23 86 . 975B —$S I 28 F28 <10 (4) >97.6 6B ——S I 28 F2 7.6 99.04 975B —$S ±28 F33 <10 (14) >97.8 • 6B ——AC I 28 F8 480 '(1) 59 32B ——AC I 28 Fl 230 (1) 44 32B -~ACT I 28 ... . F8 <1 (1) >99.79 32B ——A (B) + FIL . I 28 F20 <10 (1) 98.3 87B ——F I 28 F38 <10 (3) >96.3 6B ——Ox RCRA F 57 72 242E ——.S S B 0.8 (10) 99.30 200B VS-ACT ' "S B 0.3 (13) 99.75 200B VS-S SF F6 <10 (4) • >97.0 245B ——hPt SF F8 220 (5) 28 '. . ' 245B ——il SF F8 . 210 (5) 8 245B ——AC SF F4 <10 (5) >98.1 245B" ——AC SF F8 <10 (4) >92.8 245BF SP . P2 84 35 250B ——

AR3QW3I


TOLUENE .*GAS NO.: 108-88-3



AS D F28 9 (6) 99.81 IB -S-AirS GW F 34 (6) 99.18 322B —$AL+AS I 28 F 4 (21) 99.85 233D VS-AS I 28 Fl 12 99.68 975B —$AS I 28 F3 <20 (33) >99.80 6B ——AS I 28 Fil <10 (3) >99.57 6B ——AS I 28 F4 <1 (1) >99.971 32B ——AS I 28 F6 <1 (1) >99.905 32B ——AS I 28 Fl 410 (1) 86 32B ——AS ' I 28 F31 <10 (15) >99.88 6B ——AS I 28 Fl 24 (3) . 99.76 6B ——AS I 28 F5 <10 (7) >99.50 6B ——AS I 28 Fl <10 (24) >99.73 6B ——AS I 28 F4 280 96.3 975B —$AS I 28 F13 23 (3) 99.00 87B ——AS I 28 F17 <10 (3) >99.88 87B ——AS I 28 F5 <48 (3) >99.10 87BChPt (B) + FIL I 28 F19 600 (1) 48 87B ',Fil I 28 Bl 1,600 47 63EGAC+ChOx(Cl) I 33 F <10 >99.51 9E —$SS I 28 F32 10 (2) 99.71 6B ——SS I 28 F6 <100 (1) >98.0 87B ——SS I 28 F22 <11 (2) >99.40 87B ——Sed + AS I 28 F28 <10 (3) >99.55 87B ——WOX (B) I U B2 <500 (1) >90.0 78E ——AL S B 90 - 97.0 371D VS-ChOx(Cl) (B) S Bl 8,500 (1) 15 49E ——ChOx(Oz) (B) S B2 '9,400 (1) 6.0 49E ——AirS SF F6 270 (5) 95.8 245B ——'•ChPt SF F6 7,000 (5) 26 245B ---Fil SF F6 .6,400 (5) 9 . 245B ---RO SF F4 420 94.7 250B ——Fil+GAC TSDF F3 <830 (3) >90.0 28B VS-PACT TSDF Bl <1 >99.963 46E ——

HR30H032


TOLUENE .

CAS NO.: 108-88-3



irS GW F 114 (3) 99.33 322B —$AC HL Fl <10 (1) >99.935 .245B ——PI+DAF+AS I 29 F 11 (4) 99.928 1482D ——S I 28 F8 76 (3) 99.904 6B ——\S I 28 F20 73 (3) 99.84 6B -—\S+Fil I 28 F26 <10 (3) >99.977 6B ——3S I 28 F32 12 (3) 99.948 . 6B ——•JOx I U P 500 (1) 98.3 78E ——•JOX (B) I U B2 <1,000 (1) >98.8 78E ——\S S B <10 >99.983 202D VS-irS S B2 2,800 (5) 92.4 1328E ——AC S P <10 >99.955 435B ——Ox (B) S B3 500 98.9 1054E V—irS SF . P 140 (1) 99.07 91E ——

INFLUENT CONCENTRATION - >100-1000 mg/LEFFLUENT ; -

ECHNOLOGY MATRIX SIC SCALE CONCENTRATION PERCENT REFERENCECODE ( mg/L ) . REMOVAL

11 ' I 28 F16 120 (3) 42 87B ——AC I 28 F15 210 (3) 0 87B ——.S S ' P <0.3 (7) >99.85 226B VS-

INFLUENT CONCENTRATION - >1 g/LEFFLUENT

'ECHNOLOGY MATRIX SIC SCALE CONCENTRATION PERCENT REFERENCECODE ( mg/L ) REMOVAL

(B) ' S Bl 220 95.7 1054E V —K)X (B) S Bl 12 (1) 99.72 78E ——

.AR3Q14033


Namkung, E. and B.E. Rittmann, "Estimating Volatile Organic Compound Emissionfrom Publicly Owned Treatment Works", Journal WPCF, Vol. 59, ^^No. 7, pp 670-678 (July 1987). " ^^

Data from two full-scale plants in Chicago

Plant F-l is Calumet WWTPFlow = 229 mgdAir:water ratio = 5.5 m3 air/m3 waterHRT =5.1 hoursSRT =5.5 daysMLSS = 2770 mg/L

Plant F-2 is West-southwest WWTPFlow =836 mgdAir:water ratio = 5.3 m3 air/m3 waterHRT =6.1 hoursSRT = 6.7 daysMLSS = 2510 mg/L

*END OF DATA*

IREL Treatability Database Reference Number: 1587A

il-Dhowalia, K.H., "Trace Volatile Organics from Water and Wastewater bytripping", A Thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate SchoolUniversity of Colorado (January'1982).

>at"cT presented herein for the Denver CO wastewater treatment plant.ercent removal from primary effluent to secondary effluent beforeihlorination. No operational information provided.

'END OF DATA*

RREL Treatability Database . Reference Number: 86B

Canviro Consultants, "Thirty Seven Municipal Water Pollution ControlPlants, Pilot Monitoring Study, Volume I - Interim Report," OntarioMinistry of the Environment, Water Resources Branch, Report No. ISBN0-7729-490O-X (December 1988) . . . .

Thirty - seven Ontario, Canada POTWs were sampled and each sample wasanalyzed for all of the contaminants on a list established for this studythat included 144 organic contaminants, 15 metals and conventionalcontaminants. The results reported herein are based upon geometric meanswith all results below the detection limit (DL) assumed to be one half ofthe DL. Reference contains information on tank sizes, flows, etc., forall 37 plants.

Mean Eff. (mg/L)


Fl Belle River (Maidstone) AS 4.9 8.1F2 Brantford AS 25 7.9F3 Burlington (Skyway) AS 36 20F4 Cornwall Sed 59 36F5 Grimsby (Baker Road) AS 19 11F6 Guelph AS 26 15.F7 Hamilton (Woodward) AS 20 6.9F8 Kingston City ' Sed 50. 18F9 Kingston Twp. AS 8.1 . 4.3F10 Kitchener AS 22 4.8Fil Lindsay Lagoon AL 17 21F12 London (Greenway) AS 27 11F13 London (Pottersburg) AS 21 7.3F14 Mississauga (Clarkson) AS 20 11F15 Mississauga (Lakeview) AS 24 25F16 Moore (Corunna) AS 41 11F17 Niagara Falls (Stamford)' RBC 18 14F18 Niagara-on-the-Lake Lagoon AL 41 41F19 Oakville (Southeast) AS 15 10F20 Ottawa (Green Creek) ' Sed 22 18F21 Paris AS 24 2.9F22 Peterborough AS 23 7.4F23 Pickering (Duffin Creek) AS 23 21F24 Sarnia Sed 20 22F25 Sault Ste. Marie (East) • Sed 79 37F26 Sault Ste. Marie (West) AS 11 8.6F27 Sudbury AS 46 11F28 Thunder Bay Sed 108 • 78F29 Toronto (Highland Creek) AS 26 17F30 Toronto (Humber) AS 24 20F31 Toronto (Main) AS 23 11F32 Toronto (North) AS 27 7.8F33 Waterloo AS 13 7.3F34 Wallaceburg AS 9.7 6.4F35 Windsor (Little River) AS 33 6.8F36 Windsor (Westerly) Sed 45 22F37 Whitby (Pringle Creek #1) AS 34 5.5

* Geometric means ,

*END OF DATA*


McCarty, P.L., M., Reinhard and D.G. Argo, "Organic Removal by Advancedswater Treatment", Proceedings of the 97th Annual WPCF Conference,

Tfie Orange County Water District has an advanced wastewater treatmentsystem at Water Factory 21 to treat the effluent from the municipaltrickling filter plant. The system is designed to treat 15 mgd.Data reported herein for 350-500 mg/L lime addition (as CaO) to raise pHabove 11.3, rapid mix, flocculati'on with polymer addition, sedimentationfollowed by ammonia stripping in counter-current, induced draft towers withan air:water -ratio of 400 ft3/gal.

*END OF DATA*


Reijen, G.K., J. van der Laan and J.A.M. van Paassen, "Removal of VolatileChlorinated Hydrocarbons by Air Stripping", Water Supply, Vol. 3, pp 219-2(1985).

A full-scale air stripping tower was designed based on pilot-scale testingThe full-scale plant has been in operation since April 1983. The towerdesign was as follows:

Packing • = Hy-pak 30 mmTotal height = 6.4 mPacking height = 3.7 mDiameter = 1.6 mLiquid loading rate = 18 m/hrAir:water ratio =80

*END OF DATA*

AR3Qt*038

RREL Treatabiliry Database Reference Number: 369A

Amy, G.L. and W.J. Cooper, "Air Stripping of Volatile Organic CompoundsUsjJLq Structured Media", Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division(jfH|) , Vol. 112, NO. 4, pp 729-743 (1986).-

A Ulries of 26'pilot plant runs were made on two different waters atvarious air:water ratios (from 10 to 201) and at various liquidloading rates (16.3 to 53.1 gpm/ft2) using two different types ofstructured media packing. Data from only two runs included in tables usingmedia A with a surface area = 123 ft2/ft3. The feed water for P-l was acontaminated groundwater and for P-2 a tap water spiked with the threeorganics of interest.

Pilot plantDia. = 30 in.Packing Ht. = 15 ft for P-2 •

= 7 ft for P-l ;Air:water ratio =100 both runs (vol/vol)Hydraulic loading = 24.5 gpm/ft2 for P-2

= 30.6 gpm/ft2 for P-l

*END OF DATA* . •

i

AR30U039


Cummins, M.D., "Field Evaluation of Trichloroethylene Removal by PackedColumn Air Stripping - Rockaway Township, NJ, August 1982", InternalReport, TSD, ODW; EPA, Cincinnati, OH.


Operated at six air:water ratios (5 to 100) with liquid rates from 63 to 9gpm/ft2.

Data on table for air:water ratio = 100 with liquid rate of 9 gpm/ft2 andan air flow of 120 scfm/ft2.

*END OF DATA*


Dyksen, J.E., A.F. Hess, III, M.J. Barnes and G.C. Cline, "The Useof/Aeration to Remove Volatile Organics from Ground Water", Proceedings oftH^WWA Annual Conference, Miami Beach, FL, pp 965-980 (1982) .

Several pilot plant runs were made on groundwaters at two locations in thenortheast. The pilot plant was 12 ft. high, 12 in. in diameter andcontained 10 ft', 'of 1 in. ballast saddles. Data reported herein obtainedunder the following conditions:

Location No. 1 (PI):water rate =15 gpmair rate = 38 scfmair:water ratio = 19:1 (v/jv)

Location No. 2 (P2):water rate =20 gpmair rate = 48 scfmair:water ratio =18:1 (v/v)

Limited data on annual costs provided.

*END OF DATA*

RR30HOM


Cummins, M.D., "Field Evaluation of Trichloroethylene Removal by PackedColumn Air Stripping - Delavan, WI, October 1982", Internal Report, TSD,ODW, EPA, Cincinnati, OH. • "Same pilot plant as for Ref. 207B.

Data collected at six air:water ratios (5-78) with data on table forair:water ratio = 48 with liquid loading = 16 gpm/ft2 and air loading = 100scfm/ft2.

*END OF DATA*

RREL Treatability Database Reference Number: '223B

Cummins, M.D., "Field Evaluation of Packed Column Air Stripping - Brewster,Internal Report, TSD, ODW, EPA, Cincinnati, OH (August 1985) .

plant in Ref . 207B was used along with a 6 in. ID and 12 in.ID pilot plants. In addition, a full-scale unit was evaluated; it was 57in. ID with 17 ft 8 in. of 1 in. plastic saddles. All four systems wereoperated at various air-water ratios and with various sizes of packing (48runs) ,

Data in table from 57 in. unit at an air: water ratio = 37 with waterloading = 0.011 m3/m2-sec and air loading = 0.40 m3/m2-sec.

*END OF DATA*

RREL Treatability Database' Reference Number: 1585E

Raczko, R.F., J.E. Dykerson and M.B. Denove, "Pilot-Scale Studies of AirStripping for Removal of Volatile Organics from Ground Water",Proceedingsof the Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste Conference, pp 580-91 (1982).

Groundwater from two different locations was treated by an air strippingpilot plant 12 in. in diameter and 12 ft high with 10 ft of packing media(1 in. Glitsch plastic ballast saddles; surface area 62 ft2/ft3 and91% void volume).

Location 1 (6 runs)Flowrate = 15-30 gpmAir:water ratio = 13:1 to 19:1 (vol/vol)

Location 2 (9 runs)Flowrate •= 10-50 gpmAir:water ratio = 7.2:1 to 79:1 (vol/vol)

The data for Location 1 (PI) were obtained at a water flow rate of 15 gpmwith an air:water ratio of 19:1. At Location 2 (P2) the flow rate was 30gpm and the ratio was 27:1.

*END OF DATA*

iREL Treatability Database Reference Number: 84A

^ieta, E.M., K.M. Reagan, J.S. Lang, L. McReynolds, J.W. Kang andjGlaze, "Advanced Oxidation Processes for TreatingIwater Contaminated With TCE and PCE: Pilot-ScaleItion", Journal AWWA, .pp. 64-72 (May 1988).

Chemical oxidation pilot plant studies were conducted onjroundwater from well 5 in .North Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA. TheDzone contactor had an ID of 7.5 inches and a height of 75 inchestfith a liquid volume of 40.3 liters. Hydrogen peroxide was mixedvith the groundwater prior to being fed to the top of thecontactor and ozone was added to the bottom of the contactorrfhich contained a four-stage turbine mixer. For the first twentyruns the hydraulic contact time was maintained constant at 15aih. and the ozone (O3) dosage, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) dosage and O3 toS2O2 ratio were varied. For the run (PI) reported herein the dosageswere: 03 = 8.7 mg/L and H2O2 =3.0 mg/L. From these studies itwas determined that the optimum H2O2 to 03 dosage ratio by weightoccurs near 0.5.

A second series of 12 runs were made to evaluate contact timesfrom 2.8 to 15 min. at different O3 and H2O2 dosages. Contacttime in this range had no effect on oxidation efficiency.Therefore, four runs were averaged with O3 dosages =7.3 mg/L andH2O2 dosage = 3.7 mg/L. They 'are included herein as P2.

No TCE or PCE were detected in the off-gas during any of theexperiments.

*END OF DATA*


Pekin, T. and A. Moore, "Air Stripping of Trace Volatile Organics fromWastewater", Proceedings of the 37th Industrial Waste Conference, PurdueUniversity, West Lafayette, IN (1982).

Pilot column was 10.5 ft high (7 ft of liquid) and 6.4 inches ID withwastewater flowrate of 0.16 gpm.

HRT =80 minutes (approx.)

Data on table from air:water ratio = 50. Other data available at air:waterratios from 22 to 125. Data also available on packed toweroperation.

*END OF DATA*

*


Amy, G.L. and W.J. Cooper, "Air Stripping of Volatile Organic CompoundsUsing Structured Media", Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division

v°l- 112* No. 4, pp 729-743 (1986).

A "Series of 26 pilot plant runs were made on two different waters atvarious air:water ratios (from 10 to 201) and at various liquidloading rates (16.3 to 53.1 gpm/ft2) using two different types ofstructured media packing. Data from only two runs included in tables usingmedia A with a surface area = 123 ft2/ft3. The feed water for P-l was acontaminated groundwater and for P-2 a tap water spiked with the threeorganics of interest.

Pilot plant .Dia. = 30 in.Packing Ht. =15 ft for P-2

= 7 ft for P-lAir:water ratio = lOO both runs (vol/vol)Hydraulic loading = 24.5 gpm/ft2 for P-2

=30.6 gpm/ft2 for P-l

*END OF DATA*

RREL Treatability Database ' Reference Number: 1138E

Frischherz, H., F. Ollram, F. Scholler and E. Schmidt, "Reaction Productsfrom Halogenated Hydrocarbons Resulting from UV-Treatment", WaterSupply, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp 167-171 (1986).

Batch UV-radiation tests were conducted using a tap water spiked withorganics of interest. The radiation chamber was 5 L and lamp output was 15W. Samples were taken at 5, 30 and 60 minutes with data reported hereinfor 60 minutes.

*END OF DATA*

ARSONS

!REL Treatability Database Reference Number: 206B'etrasek, A.C., B.M. Austern and T.W. Neiheisel, "Removal and Partitioning

Volatile Organic Priority Pollutants in Wastewater Treatment", PresentedNinth U.S. Japan Conference on Sewage Treatment Technology, Tokyo,

'(September 1983). . . .

?weTve month pilot plant study at 33.5 gpm .

Primary ClarifierOverflow rate = 690 gpd/ft2

Aeration BasinHRT =7.5 hours ;SRT =5.9 daysMLSS = 2890 mg/LSVI • = 153 ml/gm

Secondary ClarifierOverflow rate = 450 gpd/ft2

Secondary EffluentTSS . =30 mg/L, 93% Removal 'COD = 77 mg/L, 87% Removal

Data also available in reference on priority pollutant concentrations onsludges and in aeration basin off-gas. [

*END OF DATA*

RREL Treatability Database Reference Number: 86B •

Canviro Consultants, "Thirty Seven Municipal Water Pollution ControlPlants, Pilot Monitoring Study, Volume I - Interim Report," OntarioMinistry of the Environment, Water Resources Branch, Report' No. ISBN0-7729-4900-X (December 1988).

Thirty - seven Ontario, Canada POTWs were sampled and each sample wasanalyzed for all of the contaminants on a list established for this studythat included 144 organic contaminants, 15 metals and conventionalcontaminants. The results reported herein are based upon geometric meanswith all results below the detection limit (DL) assumed to be one half ofthe DL. Reference contains information on tank sizes, flows, etc., forall 37 plants.

*Mean Eff. (mg/L)


Fl Belle River (Maidstone) AS 4.9 8.1F2 Brantford AS 25 7.9F3 Burlington (Skyway) AS 36 20F4 Cornwall Sed 59 36F5 Grimsby (Baker Road) AS 19 11F6 Guelph AS 26 15F7 Hamilton (Woodward) AS 20 6.9F8 Kingston City Sed 50 18F9 Kingston Twp. AS 8.1 4.3F10 Kitchener • AS 22 4.8Fil Lindsay Lagoon AL 17 2iF12 London'(Greenway) AS > 27 11F13 London (Pottersburg) AS 21 7.3F14 Mississauga (Clarkson) AS 20 • 11F15 Mississauga (Lakeview) AS 24 25F16 Moore (Corunna) AS 41 11F17 Niagara Falls (Stamford) RBC 18 14F18 Niagara-on-the-Lake Lago-on AL 41 41F19 Oakville (Southeast) AS 15 10F20 Ottawa (Green Creek) Sed 22 18F21 Paris AS 24 2.9F22 Peterborough AS 23 7.4F23 Pickering (Duffin Creek) AS 23 21F24 Sarnia Sed 20 22F25 Sault Ste. Marie (East) Sed 79 37F26 Sault Ste. Marie (West) AS 11 8.6F27 Sudbury AS 46 11F28 Thunder Bay Sed 108 78F29 Toronto (Highland Creek) AS 26 17F30 Toronto (Humber) AS 24 20F31 Toronto (Main) AS 23 11F32 Toronto (North) AS 27 7.8F33 Waterloo AS 13 7.3F34 Wallaceburg 'AS 9.7 6.4F35,Windsor (Little River) AS 33 6.8F36 Windsor (Westerly) ' Sed 45 22F37 Whitby (Pringle Creek #1) AS 34 5.5

* Geometric means

*END OF DATA*

AR30U050

Treatability Database ' Reference Number: 209B

-ummins, M.D., "Field Evaluation of Trichloroethylene Removal by PackedColumn Air Stripping - Washington, NJ, August 1982", Internal Report, TSD,

., Cincinnati, OH. -

plant as for Ref. 207B.Dperated at air:water ratios from 5 to 80 and sampled at l ft intervals(6 runs).

Oata in table for air:water ratio = 80 at liquid loading = 11 gpm/ft2.

*END OF DATA*

AR3QI4Q5I


Cummins, M.D.,"Field Evaluation of Trichloroethylene Removal by PackedColumn Air Stripping - Clean, NY, May 1982", Internal Report, TSD, ODW,EPA, Cincinnati, OH.


Operated at six air:water ratios (10-150) with data on table for air:waterratio = 88 with liquid loading = 12 gpm/ft2 and air loading = 140 scfm/ft2.

*END OF DATA*


Sross, R.L., "Development of Packed-Tower Air Strippers forrrichloroethylene Removal at Wurtsmith Air Force Base, Michigan", U.S. Air

Engineering and Services Center Final Report No. ESL-TR-«5-28 (August

This report contains data from both pilot plant and full-scale airstripping of TCE from groundwater. Data were collected at- varioushydraulic rates, air:water ratios and various air temperatures. Data on -table from full-scale operation of two packed-tower units operated inparallel.

Each unit was:

Height ="30 ft ;Diameter =' 5 ftPacking = 1 ft of 1 in. polypropylene Pall rings

17 ft of 5/8 in. polypropylene Pall ringsFlow rate = 430 gal/min .Air:water ratio = 32:1

*END OF DATA*

AR30U053

RREL Treatability Database .Reference Number: 219B

Cummins, M.D., "Field Evaluation of Trichloroethylene Removal by PackedColumn Air Stripping - Hartland, WI, September 1982", Internal Report, TSD,ODW, EPA, Cincinnati, OH.


Data collected at six air:water ratios (5 to 84) with data on table forair:water ratio =43 with liquid loading = 17 gpm/ ft2 and air loading =98 scfm/ft2.

*END OF DATA*

*REL Treatability Database ' Reference Number: 1363E

iyers, W.D., E.A. Hadfield and K.E. Cook, "VOC Removal -- Pilot TestingProceedings of the XII AWWA Water Quality TechnologyDenver, CO, pp 369-379 (1984). -

3ev?al packed- tower , air-stripping, pilot plant runs were made on the wellvater used by the City of Tacoma, WA, for drinking water. The pilot columnvas 4 in. in diameter and contained 8 ft of -0.5 in. ceramic Intaloxsaddles. The liquid rate was varied from 0.14 to 1.95 gpm and the air flowvas varied from 3.8 to 15.2 scfm. Data reported herein for liquid = 0.15jpm and air = 5.7 scfm (runs at liquid T = 20 C) . Runs were also conductedit 6 C (see ref .) .

This study resulted in a full-scale air stripping system:

Flow = 3500 gpm (total)No. of towers = 5Dia. = 12 ftMedia depth =23 ftMedia = 1 in. plastic saddlesAir flow = 29,000 scfm (each)Air: water ratio =310:1

*END OF DATA*

AR3Ql*055


McKinnon, R.J. and J.E. Dyksen, "Removing Organics from Groundwater ThroughAeration Plus GAC", Journal AWWA, Vol. 76, No. 5, pp 42-47 (May 1984).

To-determine the full-scale design criteria for a countercurrent . .packed column aeration system, pilot-scale tests were run. Threedifferent air:water ratios were used, 44:1, 75:1, and 125:1. Thedata for air:water ratio of 125 :'l was the one reported herein since thiswas the closest to the design of the full-scale (200:1) unit.The pilot plant consisted of a 12 in. diameter column packed with10 ft of 3 in. tellerettes. (No other operational informationprovided).

Data presented for the full-scale unit was incomplete and therefore notreported.

*END OF DATA*

}REL Treatability Database Reference Number: 220B

Cummins, M.D., "Field Evalviation of Packed Column Air Stripping - GlenNY, December 1982", Internal Report, TSD, ODW, EPA, Cincinnati, OH.

bilot plant as for Ref. 207B.Data collected at six air:water ratios (6-86) with data on table forair:water ratio = 86 with liquid loading = 0.007 m3/m2-sec and air loadingD.63 m3/m2-sec.

Data also available on 2 in. plastic saddles.

*END OF DATA*.

AR3Ql*057


Aieta, E.M., K.M. Reagan, 'J.S. Lang, L. McReynolds, J.W. Kang andW.H. Glaze, "Advanced Oxidation Processes for TreatingGroundwater Contaminated With TCE and PCE: Pilot-ScaleEvaluation", Journal AWWA, pp. 64-72 (May 1988).Chemical oxidation pilot plant studies were conducted ongroundwater from well'5 in North'Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA. Theozone contactor had an ID of 7.5 inches and a height of 75 incheswith a liquid volume of 40.3 liters. Hydrogen peroxide was mixedwith the groundwater prior to being fed to the top of thecontactor and ozone was added to the bottom of the contactorwhich contained a four-stage turbine mixer. For the first twentyruns the hydraulic contact time was maintained constant at 15min. and the ozone (O3) dosage, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) dosage and O3 toH2O2 ratio were varied. For the run -(PI) reported herein the dosageswere: O3 = 8.7 mg/L and H2O2 =3.0 mg/L. From these studies itwas determined that the optimum H2O2 to O3 dosage ratio by weightoccurs near 0.5.

A second series of 12 runs were made to evaluate contact timesfrom 2.8 to 15 min. at different O3 and H2Q2 dosages. Contacttime in this range had no effect on oxidation efficiency.Therefore, four runs were averaged with O3 dosages =7.3 mg/L andH?O2 dosage = 3.7 mg/L. They are included herein as P2.

No TCE or PCE were detected in the off-gas during any of theexperiments.

*END OF DATA*

RREL Treatability Database Reference Number: 3 IB

Steeves, R.A. and. M.A. Crawford, "Toxicity of Leather Tanning and FinishingWastewaters, Internal Working Report", U.S. EPA, IERL, Cincinnati, Ohio

of twenty-four hour samples was taken of full-scale treatmentsystems at seven tanneries and analyzed for priority pollutants and aquatictoxicity. The tanneries were in the following categories:

Tannery-No . Subcategory

Fl ShearlingF2 - ShearlingF3 Hair Pulp, Chrome Tan, Retan-Wet FinishF4 Retan/Wet Finish - Grain SideF5 Hair Save, Chrome Tan, Retan-Wet FinishF6 Non-Chrome TanningF7 Non-Chrome TanningF8 Through-the-Blue

Fl and F2 were the same plant sampled at two different times, once when PACwas added to the AS process (Fl) and once without PAC (F2). Referencecontains design and operating parameters for the unit processes at each ofthe seven plants. ,

*END OF DATA* . .


Byers, W.D. and C.M. Morton, "Removing VOC from Groundwater; Pilot,Scale-up, and Operating Experience", Environmental Progress, Vol. 4, No. 2pp 112-118 -(May 1985).

A series of air-stripping pilot plant tests were conducted on a tap waterspiked with four VOCs to represent a contaminated groundwater in TacomaWash. The stripping column was; dia. = 4 in. with 8 ft of 0.5 in. ceramicIntallox saddles. Eleven runs were made with both air and water at 20 Cand ten runs with both at 6 C. The hydraulic loading for these runs wasvaried from 0.14 to 1.95 gpm and the air:water ratio was varied from 15to 800.

The data herein were generated at t = 6 C, water flow rate =0.27 gpm andan air:water ratio = 265 (full-scale plant designed at a ratio = 300).Overall VOC removals in full-scale plant >98%, no specifics given.

* END OF DATA *

&R30UQ6Q


Raczko, R.F., J.E. Dykerson and M.B. Denove, "Pilot-Scale Studies of AirStripping for Removal of Volatile Organics from Ground Water",Proceedingso£flkp Mid-Atlantic'Industrial Waste Conference,, pp 580-91 (1982).

SroTmdwater from two different locations was treated by an air strippingpilot plant 12 in. in diameter and 12 ft high with 10 ft of packing media(1 in. Glitsch plastic ballast saddles; surface area 62 ft2/ft3 and91% void volume).

Location 1 (6 runs)Flowrate = 15-30 gpmAir:water ratio = 13:1 to 19:1 (vol/vol)

Location 2 (9 runs)Flowrate = 10-50 gpmAir:water ratio = 7.2:1 to 79:1 (vol/vol)

The data for Location 1 (PI) were obtained at a water flow rate of 15 gpmwith an air:water ratio of 19:1. At Location 2 (P2) the flow rate was 30gpm and the ratio was 27:1.*END OF DATA*

AR3Ql>06


Dyksen, J.E., A.F. Hess, III, M.J. Barnes and G.C. Cline, "The Useof Aeration to Remove Volatile Organics from Ground Water", Proceedings ofthe AWWA Annual Conference, Miami Beach, FL, pp 965-980 (1982).

Several pilot plant runs were made on groundwaters at two locations in thenortheast. The pilot plant was 12 ft. high, 12 in. in diameter andcontained 10 ft. of 1 in. ballast saddles. Data reported herein obtainedunder the following conditions:

Location No. 1 (PI):water rate = 15 gpmair rate = 38 scfmair:water ratio =19:1 (v/v)

Location No. 2 (P2):water rate = 20 gpmair rate = 48 scfmair:water ratio =18:1 (v/v)

Limited data on annual costs provided.

*END OF DATA*

rZL, Treatability Database Reference Number: 211B

2ummins, M.D., "Field Evaluation of Packed Column Air Stripping - TwinArmy Ammunition Plant, June 1983", Internal Report, TSD, ODW, EPA,

OH. , - -

plant as for Ref. 207B.

Dperated at four air:water ratios (15-40) and four air pressure dropgradients. Data obtained on two different wells.

Data in table for air:water ratio = 44 and air pressure drop of 1/16 in.of water per ft of column height.

*END OF DATA*

AR30l*063

RREL Treatability Database Reference Number: 3IB

'Steeves, R.A. and M.A. Crawford, "Toxicity of Leather Tanning and FinishingWastewaters, Internal Working Report", U.S. EPA, IERL, Cincinnati, Ohio(July 1982). -

One set of twenty-four hour samples was taken of full-scale treatmentsystems at seven tanneries and analyzed for priority pollutants and aquatictoxicity. The tanneries were in the following categories:

TanneryNo. Subcategory

Fl ShearlingF2 ShearlingF3 Hair Pulp, Chrome Tan, Retan-Wet FinishF4 Retan/Wet Finish - Grain SideF5 Hair Save, Chrome Tan, Retan-Wet FinishF6 Non-Chrome TanningF7 Non-Chrome TanningF8 Through-the-Blue

Fl and F2 were the same plant sampled at two different times, once when PACwas added to the AS process (Fl) and once without PAC (F2). Referencecontains design and operating parameters for the unit processes at each ofthe seven plants.

*END OF DATA*

RREL Treatability Database. . Reference Number: 435A

Bilello, L.J., P.H. Markey, M.G. Winslow, M.A. Deady and G.T. Jackson,"Evaluation of Granular Activated Carbon Treatment of PesticidesMaa acturing Wastwater", EPA Contract 68-02-3918, Cincinnati, OH (1985).

activated carbon pilot plant study on synthetic wastewatercontaining atrazine, toluene, and isopropylamine (processed 74,900liters in 46 days). Isopropylamine broke through all 4 columns thefirst day, toluene at throughput of 60,000 liters and atrazine at about70,000 liters. The pilot plant consisted of 4 columns in series operateddownflow. Each column:

Length = 1.8 mCarbon Depth = 1.2 mDia. = 10.2 cmCarbon Wt. = 4530 gms (each)Carbon Type = reactivated Filtrasorb 300EBCT =7.5 min (each)Flow Rate = 1289 ml/minTemperature = 22 to 25 CpH =9

*END OF DATA* . ,

SL Treatability Database Ver No. 4.0 03/22/93

VINYL CHLORIDE

3 NO.: 75-01-4

/[POUND TYPE: HYDROCARBON,HALOGENATED

3MULA: C2 H3 CL .

3MICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES REF.

MOLECULAR WEIGHT: 62.50 333AMELTING POINT (C): -159.7 462ABOILING POINT (C): -13.9 462AVAPOR PRESSURE @ T(C), TORR: 2580 @ 20 463ASOLUBILITY IN WATER @ T(C), MG/L: 1.1 @ 25 463ALOG OCTANOL/WATER PARTITION COEFFICIENT: 0.60 379BHENRY'S LAW CONSTANT, ATM X M3 !!OLE-1: 2.78 E-2 @ 25 1034A

7IRONMENTAL DATA ' REF.

«NIC NONCARCINOGENIC SYSTEMIC TOXICITY NAESTIMATES FOR CARCINOGENS NAKING WATER HEALTH ADVISORIES/STANDARDS 346B

WATER QUALITY CRITERIA 3'45BAQUATIC TOXICITY DATABASE • 5B

?REUNDLICH ISOTHERM DATA

?REUNDLICH ISOTHERM DATA NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME !

AR30t*066


VINYL CHLORIDE

CAS NO.: 75-01-4



AS D F30 <S20 (4) >80 IB -S-AirS GW P <0.5 (1) >93.1 217B —$AirS GW F <0.3 >96.4 69A —$Sed'+ AS I 28 F28 <10 (1) >17 87B ——UVW03 (B) SF Bl <0.5 (1) >97.5 92B —$UVW03WH202 (B) SF B2 <0.5 (1) >97.5 92D —$UVWH202 SF PI . <0.8 (1) >98.0 92D —$UVWH202 SF P2 <0.5 .(1) >98.6 92D —$UVWH202 SF P3 <0.5 (10) >97.8 92D —$UVWH202 (B) SF B3 <0.5 (1) >96.6 92D —$



AirS GW F <0.1 >99.985 1344EAS I 28 F16 <50 (3) >94.9 6B ——AS I 28 F5 <62 (2) >89 87B ——



AS D F6 100 (6) 94.1 IB -S-AS+Fil I 28 F9 <50 (14) >98.3 6B ——SS I 28 Fl <10 (10) >99.88 251B V-$SS I 28 F7 <10 (3) >99.78 • 87B ——SS • I 28 F6 <100 (1) >98.0 87B ——ChOx(Cl) (B) S Bl 8,600 (1) 14 49E ——ChOx(Oz) (B) S B2 >99 (1) <100 49E ——


fl^ VINYL CHLORIDE

CAS NO . :

ECHNOLOGY

S

ECHNOLOGY

75-01-4



D F57





3,900 (6)

- >i g/LEFFLUENT

CONCENTRATION( mg/L )

PERCENT REFERENCEREMOVAL

92.9 IB -S--

PERCENT REFERENCEREMOVAL

I 28 F9 <0.12 (11) >99.990 ' 6B ———

AR'30l*068


Cummins, M.D., "Field Evaluation of Packed Column Air Stripping - ValleyPark, MO, March 1985", Internal Report, TSD, ODW, EPA, Cincinnati, OH.

Pilot plant 2 ft' ID, 24 ft tall with 18 ft of 1 in. plastic saddles.Data collected at 10 depths for each run. Six runs with air:water ratiovaried from 0.9, to 39.


*END OF DATA*

AR30«4(369

Records Collections | US Environmental Protection Agency · 2019. 12. 10. · Golder Associates...

Documents

Transcript of Records Collections | US Environmental Protection Agency · 2019. 12. 10. · Golder Associates...