FINALTREATABILITY TESTING REPORT

DRAKE CHEMICAL SUPERFUND SITELOCK HAVEN, PENNSYLVANIA

CONTRACT NUMBERDACW45-90-C-0117

AUGUST 1992

GANNETT FLEMING, INC.BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

R3QI4653

Sd

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ection Page

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

1.1 SITE BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ...................... 1-11.2 GROUNDWATER CHARACTERIZATION .................. 1-313 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION ................ 1-121.3.1 Metal Precipitation ...................................... 1-12132 Filtration ............................................. 1-12133 Activated Sludge ........................................ 1-1313.4 Granular Activated Carbon................................ 1-131.3.5 Biological Activated Carbon ............................... 1-1313.6 Sludge Disposal ........................................ 1-131.4 KEY CONTACTS ...................................... 1-14

2.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................. 2-1

2.1 SUMMARY ............................................ 2-12.1.1 Metal Precipitation ....................................... 2-12.12 Filtration .............................................. 2-22.13 Activated Sludge ......................................... 2-22.1.4 Granular Activated Carbon................................. 2-32.1.5 Biological Activated Carbon ................................ 2-32.1.6 Sludge Disposal ......................................... 2-322 CONCLUSIONS ........................................ 2-423 RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................'.... 2-4

3.0 METAL PRECIPITATION ............................................ 3-1

3.1 . OBJECTIVES .......................................... 3-13.2 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND PROCEDURES ............. 3-133 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS .............................. 3-53.4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ................. 3-83.5 COMPARISON TO TEST OBJECTIVES .................... 3-23

4.0 FILTRATION ...................................................... 4-1

5.0 ACTIVATED SLUDGE ............................................... 5-1

5.1 OBJECTIVES .......................................... 5-152 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND PROCEDURES ............. 5-15.2.1 Sludge Acclimation ....................................... 5-2522 Onsite Pretreatment ...................................... 5-25.23 Bench-Scale Activated Sludge Study .......................... 5-353 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS .............................. 5-853.1 Onsite Pretreatment ...................................... 5-8532 Activated Sludge Study .................................... 5-8

A CAWPSlVOT27337VTRBAT.ABKroC.TS 8/7/BZ 10:12 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd.)

Section Page

5.4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ................ 5-115.4.1 Sludge Acclimation ...................................... 5-115.4.2 Onsite Pretreatment ..................................... 5-145.43 Bench-Scale Activated Sludge Study ......................... 5-145.5 COMPARISON TO TEST OBJECTIVES .................... 5-31

6.0 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON ..................................... 6-1

6.1 OBJECTIVES .......................................... 6-16.2 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND PROCEDURES ............. 6-16.3 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS .............................. 6-96.4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION................. 6-96.4.1 Isotherm Analysis ........................................ 6-96.42 Column Experiments .................................... 6-1965 COMPARISON TO TEST OBJECTIVES .................... 6-346.6 COMPUTER MODELING ............................... 6-35

7.0 BIOLOGICAL ACTIVATED CARBON .................................. 7-41

7.1 OBJECTIVES ......................................... 7-417.2 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND PROCEDURES ............ 7-417.3 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS ............................. 7-427.4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ................ 7-467.5 COMPARISON TO TEST OBJECTIVES .................... 7-56

8.0 SLUDGE DISPOSAL ............................................... 8-57

8.1 OBJECTIVES AND RATIONALE ......................... 8-578.2 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND PROCEDURES ............ 8-578.3 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS ....;........................ 8-588.4 DATAANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ................ 8-58

COMPARISON TO TEST OBJECTIVES .................... 8-62

REFERENCES ........................................................... R-l

APPENDICES

A PRELIMINARY PROCESS DESIGN FOR PROPOSED TREATMENTTRAIN

B COST ESTIMATE FOR PROPOSED TREATMENT TRAIN

C EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, AND SUPPLIES NEEDED FOR EACHPROCESS COEFFICIENT

A GWPS1\JOB27337\TREATABI\TOCTS J/7/92 10:12 u U

fiR30l*655

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd.)

Section Page

D METAL SLUDGE DEWATERABILITY TEST REPORT

E CALCULATION OF FIM-DIFFUSION CONTROLLED MASS TRANSFERCOEFFICIENT

F COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR THE GAC MODEL

G RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT

A C:\WP51\IOB27337\TREATABI\TOCTS 8/7/92 10:12 in

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1-1 Organic Contaminants-Well TW-1 ...................................... 1-51-2 Inorganic Contaminants-Well TW-1 ..................................... 1-71-3 Other Parameters in Well TW-1 ........................................ 1-91-4 NPDES Permit Limits for the City of Lock Haven Sewage Treatment Plant ...... 1-101-5 Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, Ordinance 318 ................................ 1-111-6 Key Project Personnel Addresses and Phone Numbers ...................... 1-152-1 Preliminary Process Design Parameters for Groundwater Treatment Train ........ 2-62-2 Cost Estimates for Groundwater Treatment Train ........................... 2-93-1 Jar Test Run Conditions .............................................. 3-23-2 Sampling and Analysis Plan for Bench-Scale Metal Precipitation ................ 3-63-3 Sampling and Analysis Plan for Pilot-Scale Metal Precipitation ................. 3-93-4 Bench Study Monitoring Results ....................................... 3-103-5 Bench Study Selected Metal Results for Stage 2 Jar Test Conditions ............ 3-133-6 Bench Study Analysis Results for Best Jar Test Condition .................... 3-213-7 Pilot Study Full Analysis Results for Best Test Condition .................... 3-243-8 Aeration Experiment Results .......................................... 3-264-1 Bench-Scale Filtration Experiment....................................... 4-25-1 Summary of Sample Analysis for the Groundwater Pretreatment ............... 5-95-2 Summary of Sample Analysis for the As Study ............................ 5-125-3 Acclimation of Sludge and Biodegradation Potential Test .................... 5-135-4 Groundwater Characteristics Before and After The Pretreatment .............. 5-165-5 Influent Characteristics and Projected Effluent Limitations ................... 5-185-6 .Acute Toricity Test Results ......................................... t. 5-225-7 Summary of Operating Data for the As Study .......................... i.. 5-235-8 Comparison of the Reactor 1 Influent and Effluent Characteristics ............. 5-285-9 Chlorobenzene Balance .............................................. 5-306-1 Experimental Design for Isotherm Analysis ................................ 6-46-2 Experimental Design for GAC Column Operation........................... 6-66-3 Sampling and Analysis Plan for Granular Activated Carbon .................. 6-106-4 Experimental Results for Isotherm Analysis .............................. 6-116-5 Equilibrium Parameters in the Isotherm Analysis .......................... 6-206-6 Adsorption Capacity for TOC and Fenac* for the Isotherm Analysis ........... 6-216-7 GAC Column Experiment 1 for Critical Parameters ........................ 6-226-8 GAC Column Experiment 1 for Other Parameters ......................... 6-236-9 GAC Column Experiment 2 for Critical Parameters ........................ 6-256-10 GAC Column Experiment 2 for Other Parameters ......................... 6-266-11 Design Parameters of GAC Column Experiments and ACC Adsorber ........... 6-297-1 Sampling and Analysis Plan for BAG Study ................................ 7-47-2 Process Control Parameters for Biological Cultures .......................... 7-77-3 BAG Column Test Results for Critical Parameters .......................... 7-87-4 BAG Column Test Results for Organics ................................. 7-107-5 BAG Column Test Results for Metals ................................... 7-117-6 BAG Column Test Results for Conventional Parameters ..................... 7-128-1 Sampling and Analysis Plan for Sludge Disposal ............................ 8-38-2 Metal Sludge Settling Test............................................. 8-48-3 Settling Test Results ................................................. 8-58-4 Sludge TCLP Metals Analysis .......................................... 8-7

A O\WPS1\IOB27337\TREATABI\TOC.TS J/7/9210:12 iv IV

iBgure

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

1-1 Location Map ...................................................... 1-21-2 General Arrangement for Groundwater Remediation ........................ 1-42-1 Schematic of Groundwater Treatment Train ............................... 2-53-1 Coagulant Selection From Jar Test Performance ........................... 3-163-2 Turbidity vs. pH with LO^M Ferric Chloride ............................. 3-173-3 Turbidity vs. pHwith 5.0 x 10"*MFerric Chloride ......................... 3-183-4 Turbidity vs. pH with 10'3 MFerric Chloride .............................. 3-193-5 Turbidity vs. pH with 2.0 x 10'3 MFerric Chloride ......................... 3-203-6 Aeration Experiment Results .......................................... 3-275-1 A Schematic of Bench-Scale Reactor Set-Up ............................... 5-45-2 Biodegradation Potential Test Results ................................... 5-156-1 Column Configuration for GAC Experiment 1.............................. 6-76-2 Column Configuration for GAC Experiment 2.............................. 6-86-3 TOC Freundlich Isotherm for React-A .................................. 6-136-4 TOC Isotherm Analysis for Filtrasorb-400 ................................ 6-146-5 TOC Isotherm Analysis for HD-3000 .................................... 6-156-6 Fenac* Isotherm Analysis for React-A .................................. 6-166-7 Fenac* Isotherm Analysis for Filtrasorb-400 .............................. 6-176-8 Fenac* Isotherm Analysis for HD-3000 .................................. 6-18«TOC Breakthrough Curve for GAC Column Experiment 1 ................... 6-30

Fenac* Breakthrough Curve for GAC Column Experiment 1 ................. 6-31TOC Breakthrough Curve for GAC Column Experiment 2 ................... 6-32

6-12 Fenac* Breakthrough Curve for GAC Column Experiment 2 ................. 6-336-13 TOC Breakthrough Curve Prediction in GAC Experiment 1 .................. 6-376-14 Fenac* Breakthrough Curve Prediction in GAC Experiment 1 ................ 6-386-15 TOC Breakthrough Curve Prediction in GAC Experiment 2 .................. 6-396-16 Fenac* Breakthrough Curve Prediction in GAC Experiment 2 ................ 6-407-1 Experimental Configuration for the BAC Column (LD. = 5 cm) Test ............ 7-37-2 Fenac* Breakthrough Curve for BAC Column Experiment ................... 7-137-3 TOC Breakthrough Curve for BAC Column Experiment ..................... 7-14

A G\WP5I\TCffl27337\TREATABI\TOCTS tf}f92 10:12 v

AR3014659

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the groundwater treatability study conducted for the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers (USAGE), Omaha District, for the Drake Chemical Site located in Lock Haven,Pennsylvania. This report was prepared by Gannett Fleming, Inc. (GF) in response to ContractNumber DACW45-90-C-0117 and is in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's(EPA) Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies Under CERCLA (EPA, 1989).

1.1 SITE BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

As shown in Figure 1-1, the Drake Chemical Site is located in Lock Haven, Pennsylvania. Adjacentto the Drake Chemical property is a large apartment complex, a large shopping center, a municipalpark, an elementary school, several churches, the American Color and Chemical Company (ACC)(a Superfund site), and the Hammermill Paper Company industrial facility. The Bald Eagle Creekruns less than half a mile south of the site and the West Branch of the Susquehanna River is locatedapproximately three-fourths of a mile north of the site.

Irake Chemical, Inc. (Drake) purchased the site in 1962 for manufacturing specialty intermediate

chemicals for the production of dyes, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, herbicides, and pesticides. Theorganic compound 2 ,6-trichlorophenyl acetic acid (also known as the herbicide Fenac9) wasmanufactured at the plant and is a major site contaminant Activities at this site before 1962 areunclear; however, there are indications that the site may have been used for chemical production asearly as 1951. The site has been inactive since 1982.

Drake was cited several times between 1973 and 1982 for violations of environmental and health andsafely regulations. EPA initiated emergency cleanup activities in 1982 after Drake failed to respondto a request for voluntary cleanup. During this emergency cleanup, sludge and liquids from processdrums and storage tanks were removed, and a fence was erected around the site.

Starting in 1983, three phases of Superfund remedial investigation/feasibility studies (RI/FS) wereconducted by the EPA. The Phase I RI/FS, completed in 1984, focused on a leachate streamrunning offsite towards Bald Eagle Creek. A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed to remedy the

ichate stream by covering the upper reaches of the stream with natural soils and a clay cap, andinstalling a conduit drain from the site to Bald Eagle Creek. The Phase II RI/FS addressed onsite

D D:\WPSl\IOB27337\TREATABI\CHAPtTS 7/17/92 1035 1 1-1

flR30l4660

AR30<466I

*.

«;

'

oiildings, surface features, soil, sludges, and groundwater, and was completed in 1986. The Phase IID directed the demolition of buildings and tanks, followed by disposal in an offsite landfill.

There was no provision for remediation of the soil, sludges, and groundwater in this phase. ThePhase IHRI/FS, completed in 1988, was initiated to define the extent of groundwater contamination.In 1988, a ROD was signed after this phase was completed and addressed the remedial action onthe contaminated sludge/soils/sediments and groundwater at the site. The remedial action for thegroundwater decontamination includes pumping and treating the contaminated groundwater to anacceptable level for discharge to Bald Eagle Creek.

1.2 GROUNDWATER CHARACTERIZATION

As shown in Figure 1-2, the Drake Chemical Site is divided into three zones: Zone 1 includes theDrake Chemical plant property, Zone 2 is between the site and State Route 220, and Zone 3 isbetween State Route 220 and Bald Eagle Creek. The groundwater to be used as the treatabilitystudy influent was collected from Monitoring Well TW-1 in Zone 2. The results for organic andinorganic contaminants for four sampling events are presented in Tables 1-1 and 1-2, respectively,

are compared with their respective drinking water standards and water quality criteria. Othereters including biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical heptachlor oxygen demand

(COD), total organic carbon (TOC) eta, are presented in Table 1-3. All of the organiccontaminants except 2,4-dimethylphenol, 2-chlorophenol, and phenol exceeded the Federal DrinkingWater Standards and/or the Federal Water Quality Criteria (WQC). Aluminum, chromium, copper,iron, lead, and manganese, zinc, and cyanide were the inorganic contaminants which exceeded theFederal drinking water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), Secondary Maximum ContaminantLevels (SMCLs), and/or the Federal WQC. For some organic and inorganic contaminants,regulatory limits have not been promulgated yet; however, these contaminants may pose a potentialthreat to human health and the environment

The overall objective of this treatability study is to evaluate the performance of various treatmentprocesses to remove organic pollutants. In addition, pretreatment processes were evaluated for theirability to remove inorganics. The purpose of this effort is to identify treatment capable of meetingthe requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Ordinancerumber 318 for the City of Lock Haven, Pennsylvania. Tables 1-4 and 1-5 show the NPDES anddinance Number 318 limitations, respectively. For the groundwater, chlorobenzene exceeded the

D D:\WP51\JOB27337\TREATABI\CHAPI.<rS 7/17/921035 3 1-3 „ _ ,-,. ~ , f r f\AR3Q4662

1 ob:

LJOC

5;111

COPSI*TI

CM

" " 1*CL

°»UJ

tor-^1*1id

LU

_ 3o:o:

7 S3

I•*"• i a i » e* • N i o i to

^

1

m

1' '

H

00

o

4

I

* > *

8

*

J

5

o\c»"

IsS

I

3

I

*•* >

I1•5 a

P|.**iS*i•8 "8 11'S

«

B

H

:l

IAR30it665

y «5s 5

1

oo

I

c>

S

I

1

1

1.7 flR30l*666

5<nI E

«

8c$s = - - - - - -

II

3

c>

> ? I.•g <3 S J -g "8|£l?!«

_ . . . . . . „«.«gu

0

0

0

a-

io

oCSI <*

1-8

I§8 ?. a« ^ *

^ I »-i I »-^ e2S ^t*«i

Is

TABLE 1-3

OTHER PARAMETERS IN WELL TW-1

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

Parameter

BOD5<*>COD )TOCTKN-N

NH3-NNO3-NPO4-PTotal Dissolved SolidsTotal Suspended SolidsVolatile Suspended Solids

April 1992Concentration

(mg/L)

12258

147/146/146/1451861751000.048,24028842

Notes: (a) Standard unacdimated, seed was used(b) The COD sample was taken 1 week after the onsite work.(c) pH is measured in standard unit

D D:\TO51\ICffi27337\TREATABI\TABLEI-3.XS 7/17/929:16 1 1-9

TABLE 1-4

NPDES PERMIT LIMITS FOR THE CITY OF LOCK HAVENSEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE ...... _

Discharge Parameter

Cadmium (Total)Copper (Total)Lead (Total)Zinc (Total)2,4-Dinitrophenol

2-Nitrophenol2,4,6-TrichlorophenolChlqrobenzcncMethylene ChlorideTetrachloroethyleneBenzeneTolueneBenzidine1,2-Dichlorobenzene1,3-Dichlorobenzene1,4-DichlorobenzeneNitrobenzene1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

DischargeLimitations(Pg/L)

AverageMonthly

6.726.031.0180.0780.0120.031.0300.0180.025.0

MonitorMonitorND970.0410.0870.0460.0150.0

MaximumDaily

13.452.062.0360.01560.0240.062.0600.0360.050.0

1940.0820.01740.0920.0300.0

Monitoring Requirements

MeasurementFrequency

2/month2/month2/month2/month2/month2/month2/month2/month2/month2/month2/month2/month2/month2/month2/month2/month2/month2/month

Sample Type

24-hour composite24-hour composite24-hour composite24-hour composite24-hour composite24-hour composite24-hour composite24-hour composite24-hour composite24-hour composite24-hour composite24-hour composite24-hour composite24-hour composite24-hour composite24-hour composite24-hour composite24-hour composite

Note: ND Not detectable using EPA Method 625

D D:\WFSIUOB27337\TREATABKrABLEl-«.TS 7/17/92 9:16 1 1-10

TABLE 1-5

LOCK HAVEN, PENNSYLVANIA, ORDINANCE 318

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

Substance

Phenolic compounds as C HgOHCyanates as CNOIron as FeTrivalent chromium as Cr plusAmmonia (NH3)CadmiumChromium (Hexavalent)Cr6+CopperCyanide

LeadMercuryNickelSilverZincArsenic

Concentration(mg/L)

1.0<a>1.0<a>10.1<a>2.0<a>8100

0.117 )OJ06W0.30205)

0.633 )0.69)0.04)0.763)G.019 )0.332 )O.TOl )

Note: (a) Maximum average permissible concentration(b) Permissible 24-hour average concentration

D D:\WP5WOB27337\TREATABKTABLB1-5.TS 7/17/929:17 1 1-11

NPDES limit; iron and ammonia exceeded Ordinance Number 318 limit. If Fenac* was treated asa phenolic compound, it exceeded Ordinance Number 318 limit.

13 REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION

The remedial technologies selected for treatability testing included the following:

• Metal precipitation• Filtration• Activated sludge• Granular Activated Carbon (GAC)• Biological Activated Carbon (BAG)• Sludge disposal

13.1 Metal Precipitation

When coagulants/precipitant are mixed into groundwater containing colloidal suspensions, they causethe destabilization of the colloids through charge neutralization. This phenomenon allows theparticles to bond together, resulting in the formation of floes that can be settled out by gravity. Themetals that are bound to the colloidal matter would be precipitated through this mechanism. Factorsthat influence the effectiveness of metal precipitation are: coagulant type and dose, reaction time,pH, temperature, mixing intensity, and contaminants of the water.

1.3.2 Filtration

Filtration is a solid-liquid separation in which the liquid passes through a porous medium to removesuspended solids. This unit process is normally employed after the metal precipitation stage toremove the fine solids that would not settle out by gravity. If the levels of suspended solids are nottoo high, the water is sometimes subjected to direct filtration without going through coagulation/precipitation. Factors that influence the effectiveness of filtration are: type of filter medium, rateof filtration, and contaminants of the water.

D D:\WPSl\JOB27337\TRRATABr\CHAPl.TS 7/17/M 1W5 12 1-12

AR3QL*67I

1.33 Activated Sludge

In the activated sludge process, bacteria metabolize the soluble organic matter in the wastewaterwhich produces new growth while taking in dissolved oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide. Theactivated sludge effluent is continuously transferred to a clarifier for gravity separation of thebiological floe and discharge of the clarified effluent Settled floe is returned to the aeration basinfor mixing with the entering raw wastewater. Factors that influence the effectiveness of activatedsludge treatment are: temperature, availability of nutrients, oxygen supply, pH, biological seed, food-to-microorganism (F/M) ratio, and contaminants of the water.

13.4 Granular Activated Carbon

GAG removes organics from water through physical/chemical adsorption. The mass transportphenomenon governing adsorption can be explained in four stages: 1) the movement of the solutefrom the bulk solution to the liquid film or boundary layer surrounding the adsorbent solids, 2) thediffusion of the solute through the liquid film (film diffusion), 3) the diffusion of the solute inwardrough the capillaries or pores within the adsorbent solid (pore diffusion), and 4) the adsorption

of the solute onto the capillary walls or surfaces. Factors that influence the effectiveness of GAGare: type of carbon, empty bed contact time (EBGT), and characteristics of the water.

1.3.5 Biological Activated Carbon

When activated sludge is mixed with GAG in a column, the treatment process is known as BAG.In this form of treatment, two types of contaminant removal mechanisms are involved—adsorptionand biodegradation. Factors that influence the effectiveness of BAG are a combination of thoseaddressed under activated sludge and GAG treatment.

13.6 Sludge Disposal

The sludges generated from the metal precipitation, GAG, and BAG treatment processes need tobe disposed of appropriately. Conventional practices for sludge disposal have included evaluationof three important criteria—dewaterability, handling characteristics, and the leachability of sludgentaminants. Final disposal of the sludges must be conducted in accordance with the RGRA Land

Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) and all other appropriate regulations.

D D:\WP51\JOB27337\TRBATABRCHAPLTS 1/11/92 10-35 13 1-13

1.4 KEY CONTACTS

Mailing addresses and phone numbers of key project personnel are summarized in Table 1-6. Othercontributors include Emily Olds, John D. Kronicz, Rayomond Bhumgara, Henry Shin, Ching Wu,and Rich Hergenroeder of Gannett Fleming, Inc. The chemical analyses were performed by GannettFleming Environmental Laboratory.

D D:WP5WC»27337\TREATABRCHAP1.TS 7/17/921035 14 1-14 fl D Q fl f C 1

TABLE 1-6

KEY PROJECT PERSONNEL ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBERS

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

Name

Chen-yu Yen, PhD., CHMMProject Manager

Rong-Jin Leu, PhD.Treatabflity Study Leader

Address

Gannett Fleming, Inc.Village of Cross KeysSuite 200, East QuadrangleBaltimore, MD 21210Gannett Fleming, Inc.Village of Cross KeysSuite 200, East QuadrangleBaltimore, MD 21210

Phone

(410) 433-8832

(410) 433-8832

D D:\WP51\JCffl27337\TREATABI\TABLEl-dTS 7/17/92 fcl8 1 1-15 fi P Q f) I C *7 I

flR3(H675

2.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 SUMMARY

Groundwater used as the treatability study influent was collected from Monitoring Well TW-1 inZone 2 at the Drake Chemical Site. The contaminants that exceeded the Federal Drinking WaterStandards and/or the Federal WQC in Well TW-1 are 1,2-dichloroethane, benzene, toluene,trichloroethene, 2,4-dichlorophenol, chloroform, dieldrin, 1,2-dichlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene,aluminum, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, copper, zinc, and cyanide. For some organic (includingFenac*) and inorganic contaminants, regulatory limits have not been promulgated yet; however,these contaminants may still pose a potential threat to human health and the environment. Thecontaminants that exceeded the NPDES and Ordinance Number 318 for the City of Lock Haven,Pennsylvania are chlorobenzene, iron and ammonia. Fenac* exceeds the Ordinance Number 318limit if it is interpreted as a phenolic compound.

The remedial technologies selected for treatability testing included the following:

• Metal precipitation• Filtration• Activated sludge• GAC• BAG• Sludge disposal

2.1.1 Metal Precipitation

The bench-scale metal precipitation testing (rapid mix, flocculation, settling) demonstrated that ofthe four coagulants evaluated (lime, alum, ferric chloride, and a polymer), ferric chloride was themost effective over a wide range of pH values at a dosage of 5 x 10"4 M. Lead, chromium,cadmium, and arsenic were identified as metals of concern; only lead was detected at a concentrationexceeding its drinking water standard in the influent and was treated to below its standard.

The pilot-scale metal precipitation testing (aeration, rapid mix, flocculation, settling) consisted ofscaling up the best conditions observed during the bench study (5 x 10"4 M ferric chloride). None

A G\WP5WOB27337\TREATABI\CHAP2.TS 8/10/92 9X1 1 2-1

HR3JH676

of the metals of concern in the influent were detected at a concentration exceeding their drinkingwater standard. However, removal of iron was not very effective using coarse bubble diffusedaeration (for 30 minutes) followed by ferric chloride precipitation. Another study was conductedusing fine bubble diffused aeration for a longer period of time (three hours). This treatment wasvery effective in reducing iron concentrations over time.

2.1.2 Filtration

The filtration study was conducted at the bench scale to evaluate the effectiveness of vacuumfiltration in removing unsettleable solids from the supernatant after metal precipitation. Vacuumfiltration did not offer any significant solids removal.

2.13 Activated Sludge

The activated sludge study consisted of evaluating the organic characteristics and nutrients presentin metal precipitation effluent collected during the pilot study through testing for TOC, COD, five-day Biological Oxygen Demand (BODS), Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), and ammonia-nitrogen.For the BOD5 test, three different seeds from the Kalamazoo Powdered Activated CarbonTreatment (PACT) Plant, the Baltimore Back River Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP), andthe Dupont Chamber Works PACT Plant were used. The Back River and Dupont seeds indicatedthe presence of microbial activity (BOD5 was 80 to 100 mg/L), whereas the Kalamazoo seed showedalmost no BOD5 (2 mg/L).

The previously acclimated sludge was shocked by the unexpectedly drastic increase of toxicantsloading. After several corrective actions were taken, no further promising results were observed.The sludge did not settle well, and severe solids loss did not allow quantitative analysis of sludgesettling characteristics. Kinetic coefficients and design and operational parameters were notdeveloped because of the AS systems failure to remove oxygen-demanding organic contaminants.Almost all of chlorobenzene appeared to be transferred from the liquid phase to gas phase duringthe AS process.

A CWPS1\JOB27337\TRBATABIVCHAP2.TS SflQ/92 9X1 2 2-2

2.1.4 Granular Activated Carbon

The adsorption isotherms for the three tested carbons (React-A, Filtrasorb-400, and HD-3000) onTOC and Fenac* were established and were formulated theoretically by using Freundlich's isothermequation. Accordingly, React-A was selected as the most appropriate activated carbon for both theGAC and BAG column experiments.

A computer model was established to describe the GAC column performance under variousoperating conditions. The model was developed based on material-balance relationships for theGAC column, and was calibrated according to the experiment results of both isotherm analysis andcolumn operation. Design parameters, including bed size, flow rate, and running time, were selectedfor GAC based on the model prediction.

2.15 Biological Activated Carbon

The type and amount of carbon as well as the operating conditions used during the second GACexperiment were also used for the BAC column test. The column conditions were based on ACC'scarbon adsorption system's design and operation. Compared to GAC treatment, the removalefficiencies for BAC treatment were not significantly better for TOC and Fenac*; therefore, theimprovement was not enough to provide significant cost reduction.

2.1.6 Sludge Disposal

Several studies were conducted to determine metal precipitation and/or BAC sludge settleability,dewatering characteristics, leachability, and production rate. The metal precipitation sludgedemonstrated good settling properties, whereas the biological solids associated with the BAC sludgedid not settle very well. The dewatering studies conducted on the metal precipitation sludge indicatethat by using a filter belt press on a polymer preconditioned sludge, a 0.8 percent feed sludge couldbe dewatered to give a 27 to 28 percent solids cake. The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure(TCLP) metals results for the metal precipitation sludge, the cement-solidified metal precipitationsludge, and the BAC plus metal precipitation sludge indicate that none of the metal contaminantsin the leachate were detected above their respective LDRs.

A OWP51\JOB27337\TREATABIVCHAP2.TS 8/10/92 927 3 2-3

2.2 CONCLUSIONS

The following are concluded based on the treatabflity study results:

• Metal precipitation by adding coagulant is effective in removing suspended solids, butnot for iron removal. Iron can be easily oxidized through fine bubble diffused-airaeration and then removed by settling.

• Filtration is not necessary in the pretreatment train for the removal of suspendedsolids in the supernatant following metal precipitation. However, it can be used asa polishing process prior to GAC column.

• Activated sludge is sensitive to variable groundwater characteristics. However, itsfeasibility in removing the organic contaminants in the groundwater should not beruled out.

• The GAC column operation is effective in removing organic contaminants followingmetal precipitation. However, the operation cycle is short, and related regenerationcosts are consequently high.

• The BAG column operation does not show significantly better removal efficienciesfor organic contaminants than the GAC column.

• All of the generated sludge, including metal sludge and 8AC sludge, can be disposedof in a nonhazardous waste landfill.

23 RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommended treatment train for the groundwater is fine bubble aeration with pH adjustment(using caustic soda or soda ash), followed by flash mixing with anionic polyelectrolytes, then settlingin a clarifier. From the darifier, the supernatant should be directed to the GAC processes fororganic contaminants removal and the sludge directed to a dewatering device for volume reduction.Figure 2-1 presents the flow sheet of the treatment train; Table 2-1 summarizes the preliminarydesign parameter for each unit process. In Table 2-1, two sets of parameters are presented for two

A O\WPSl\JOB27337VrREATABIVCHAPZTS WO/92 927 4 2-4

Oo.a CD

<DC

UJ ufCC £h- W

*~ tt <<<l H 9UJ "*

T>s(01it.

o *~ OB

•i |s t^

1

*CD^iT

a, I

O < S £ * 3O SOC < CDCD 2 Iu. Q oo °-o

I §o

CO

•oo(O

CO

TJ

O

2-5

TABLE 2-1

PRELIMINARY PROCESS DESIGN PARAMETERS FORGROUNDWATER TREATMENT TRAIN

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

Item

Aeration TankLength (ft)Width (ft.)Depth (ft.)Detention time (hr.)Oxygen required (Ib/day)Soda ash required (Ib/day)

ClarifierDiameter (ft.)Depth (ft)Detention period (hr.)Overflow rate (gal/ft.2 day)

Sand FilterTypeFiltration rate (L/m2-min)Diameter (ft.)Backwash

velocity (m3/m2-min)time (min)run length (hr.)

Air scourvelocity (ftW-min)time (min)

Terminal headless (ft.)

Filter mediumtypedepth (mm)effective size (mm)uniformity coefficient

Design Value orDescription

2110122

140»/65*>3,000<1>/2,000<b>

17112982

pressure filter1008.8

1.0524

4430

dual-mediumanthracite sand400 3001.2 0.61.6 1.5

O D:\WP51\JCffl2733ATREATABI\TABI£2-l.TS 7f22192332 1 2-6 n .-,

TABLE 2-1 (cont'd.)RELIMINARY PROCESS DESIGN PARAMETERS FORrROUNDWATER TREATMENT TRAIN'DRAKE CHEMICAL SITEPAGE 2

Item

GACTypeVessel diameter (ft)Carbon volume per vessel (cf)Contact time (min)Breakthrough time (day)Carbon required per year (Ib)

ThickenerDiameter (ft.)Solid loading (Kg/ra2-day)

Filter pressTypePlate size (mm)Number of chambersCake volume (cf/day)Operating period (cycle/day)

Design Value orDescription

Calgon Model 101071535.7

12W/25W613,000<'>/292,000(b>

2230

Netzsche Model 80080070

80<a>/40(b>2»/l<»

Notes: (a) Values were calculated based on influent of April 1992(b) Values were calculated based on influent of May 1991

O D:VWP5I\IOB27337\TREATABI\TABLB2-1.TS 7/22/92332 2 2-7

groundwater characteristics observed in the study. The parameters were calculated assuming themaximum groundwater pumping rate of 150 gpm (GF, 1992). Refer to Appendix A for detailcalculations for these parameters. Table 2-2 summarizes the cost estimate for the treatment train.Detail calculations for the estimates are found in Appendix B. From Table 2-2, the GAC cost isapproximately half of the total annual O&M cost

In this study, GAC is a feasible process to treat Drake groundwater in terms of effectiveness andimplementability. However, its carbon cost is high and will increase if the groundwater contaminantsincrease.

Several alternative treatment processes that may offer effective Fenac* removal at a lower cost thanGAC are presented below. They are presented in the order of then* likelihood of success asevaluated by GF. A short discussion is provided for each process.

• Ion exchange: Since Fenac* is a weak acid, a strong base ion exchange resin maybe effective to bind Fenac9 at neutral or slightly alkaline pH conditions. Acidic washcan provide the mechanism for column regeneration. A bench-scale study will beneeded to confirm the treatability. The advantage of ion exchange over GAC wouldbe elimination of GAC regeneration requirements. The potential annual savings maybe up to $0.5 million.

• Anaerobic BAC: Aerobic BAG was tested in this study and did not perform wellenough to treat the groundwater. Operating BAC under anaerobic conditions hasbeen proven to be effective for the degradation of a number of chlorinated organiccontaminants. A bench-scale study will be needed. The potential annual savings maybe similar to that of ion exchange.

• Chemical oxidation (e.&, ozonation) followed by biological treatment (e.g., activatedsludge or BAC): Chemical oxidation may reduce biotoxicity and convert some of therecalcitrant contaminants to more biodegradable compounds. The advantage ofozonation/activated sludge over GAC may be an annual savings of about$0.25 million.

A C\WPSl\JOB27337\TREATABI\CHAPiTS MO/M 927 8 2-8

TABLE 2-2

COST ESTIMATES FOR GROUNDWATER TREATMENT TRAIN

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

Description

Heavy Metals Removal SystemIron Oxidation BasinAeration SystemSoda Ash Storage/Delivery SystemPolymer Delivery System

Sludge Handling ProcessesPrimary Qarifier/IhickenerSludge Holding Tank afterThickeningFilter PressSludge Holding Tank after P.P.

Granular Activated Carbon SystemGAC SystemRegenerated Carbon Storage TankSpent Carbon Storage Tank

Filtration SystemSand Filter

MAJOR PROCESSES COSTESTIMATE

Site Preparation (10%)Pumps & Piping (2070)Electrical (15%)Buildings

MAJOR PROCESSES/CONST.SUBTOTAL

Engineering (20%)TOTAL CONST./ENGR.SUBTOTAL

Contingency (25%)TOTAL CAPITAL COST

Soda Ash Addition

No. ofUnits

1111

11

11

111

1

Polymer AdditionGAC RegenerationSludge Handling/DisposalPersonnelGeneral Operation & Maintenance (10% TCC)TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST

Unit

galhpcf

Ib/day

ftcf

cfcf

cfcfcf

gpm

sq. ft

Ib rIb#rIbyyrItyyrhrftr

Design

Condition 1

18,00011

2,00012

173,900

912,000

7151,4001,400

150

1,000

1,095,0004,380

620,5002,044,000

6,240

Condition 2

18,0004

140055

171,900

481,000

7151,4001,400

150

1,000

730,0002,006

260,7141,058,500

6,240

TOTAL CAPITAL COSTTOTAL ANNUAL O&M COSTANNUALIZED TOTAL PROJECT COST (20 YR., 5.0%)

Cost

Condition 1

$55,000$7,000

$110,000$8,000

$63,000$27,300

$125,000$14,000

$90,000$9,800$9,800

$43,000

$561,900

$56,190$112 80$84,285$30,000

$844,755

$168,951$1,013,706$253,427

$1,267,133

$86505$4380

$620,500$61320$93,600$126,713$993,018

$1,267,133$993,018

$1,094,696

Condition 2

$55,000$6,000

$105,000$6,000

$63,000$13300

$115,000$7,000

$90,000$9 00$9 00

$43,000

$522 00

$5 290$104380$78,435$30,000

$788,205

$157,641$945,846$236,462$1,182308

$57,670$2,008

$260,714$31,755$93,600$118 31$563 78

$1,182308$563 78$658,849

O D:\WP5WOB2B3TiTREATABRTABIJB2-iTS 7/22/92 3 >1 1 2-9

• PACT: Limited tests at GFs treatability lab using this process did not showsignificant improvement over activated sludge because of sensitivity of the culture toshock loads. This proprietary process may be best evaluated by the vendor, Zimpro,Inc.

• UV/ozidation: The dark color of the pretreated water may reduce the UV absorptionby Fenac*, and make this alternative process less effective.

A C:\WPS1\JOB27337\TREATABIVC3IAP2.TS 5/10/92 927 10 2-10

flR30if685

, «w<

3.0 METAL PRECIPITATION

3.1 OBJECTIVES

The metal precipitation treatability study was conducted to collect data to meet the followingobjectives:

• Evaluate the effectiveness of alum, lime, ferric chloride, and a polymer at twodosages for the removal of metals in the groundwater.

• Evaluate the most effective coagulant dosage and pH for the selected coagulant.

• Evaluate settling characteristics.

• Evaluate the effectiveness of metal precipitation at the pilot scale using the mosteffective operating conditions determined during the bench study.

• Evaluate the effectiveness of aeration in removing iron from the groundwater at thepilot scale.

3.2 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND PROCEDURES

Bench Study

Groundwater was collected from Well TW-1 from Zone 2 for the bench study that was conductedin two stages at the GF treatability laboratory in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, on March 1991. The firststage (screening) consisted of conducting jar tests to compare the relative effectiveness of fourcoagulants: alum, lime, ferric chloride, and a polymer. Based on the results of the screening stage,the best coagulant was jar tested in the second stage at varying dosages and pH values in order todetermine the most effective operating conditions. Table 3-1 summarizes the jar test conditions thatwere evaluated Each jar test was conducted using one liter of groundwater and consisted of thefollowing steps:

B C\WPS1\JOB27337\TREATABIVCHAP3.TS 7/20(92 8:59 1 3-1

Stage 1

Stage 2

TABLE 3-1

JAR TEST RUN CONDITIONS

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

A GVWP5I\JCffl27337\TREATABnCHAP3\TBL3-l.TS 10/3V913-JS I

3-2

Jar Test No. Coagulant Dosage(M) pH«

12345678

AlumAlumlimeLimeFerric chloride

Ferric chloridePolymer

Polymer

1 x lO"41 x 10'31 xlO"41 x 10"31 xlO-41 x 10'31.0l(a>10.l(a>

• —

—

—

——

—

—

—

12

v- 3456789101112131415

Ferric chloride

Ferric chlorideFerric chlorideFerric chloride

Ferric chlorideFerric chlorideFerric chlorideFerric chlorideFerric chloride

Ferric chlorideFerric chlorideFerric chlorideFerric chlorideFerric chloride

Ferric chloride

1 xlO"41 xlO"41 xlO-41 xlO"4

1 xlO"41 xW41 xlO"41 xlO"41 xlO"45x10^5 xlO"45 xlO-45 xlO-45 x 10-45 xlO-4

4.485.005.606.02

6.466.987.568.018.464.505.506.006.507.007.50

TABLE 3-1 (cont'd.)TEST RUN CONDITIONS

CHEMICAL SITEkGE2

Jar Test No.

16

171819

202122232425» *27'28

2930313233343536

37

Coagulant

Ferric chloride

Ferric chloride

Ferric chlorideFerric chloride

Ferric chlorideFerric chloride

Ferric chloride

Ferric chlorideFerric chloride

Ferric chlorideFerric chloride

Ferric chloride

Ferric chlorideFerric chloride

Ferric chloride

Ferric chloride

Ferric chlorideFerric chloride

Ferric chloride

Ferric chlorideFerric chloride

Ferric chloride

Dosage(M)

5x 10-4

5x10^

5X10-41 x 10'31 x 10'31 x 10"31 x 10"31 X 10'31 x lO'31 x lO'31 x lO'31 x 10'32 x 10'32 x 10'32 x 10'32 x 10'32X10"32 x 10'32 x 10'32 x 10'32X10-32 x 10'3

pH )

8.009.0010.004.505.005.506.006 07.007.508.008.50

4.505.005 06.006.507.007JO8.008.5010.00

Notes: (a) Concentrations are in mgfL(b) The pH was not adjusted for Stage 1.

A CVWPSltfOB2733ATREATABI\CHAP3\TBL3-lTS 10/31/913:55 2 3-3

• Rapidly mixing the water for one minute after addition of coagulant and adjustingthe pH (only during Stage 2 experiment).

• Slowly mixing the water for 20 minutes to initiate the coagulation/precipitationprocess.

• Allowing the coagulated suspension to settle under quiescent conditions for60 minutes. The supernatant was then sampled for analysis. The sludge generatedfrom the experiments was collected for characterization.

Equipment, supplies, and materials that were needed to perform the metal precipitation bench studyare summarized in Appendix C.

Onsite Pretreatment

Groundwater was collected from Well TW-1 in Zone 2 for both the metal precipitation as well asan aeration pilot study that was conducted at the Drake Chemical Site on May 1991.

The water was collected in two ISO-gallon tanks for the metal precipitation study and was subjectedto the following treatment:

• Aerating the water for 30 minutes using coarse bubble diffusers.

• Rapidly mixing the water for two minutes after addition of 5 x lO^M ferric chloride(best condition from the bench study).

• Slowly mixing the water for 20 minutes to initiate the coagulation/precipitationprocess.

• Allowing the coagulated suspension to settle overnight under quiescent conditions.

The supernatant was then collected for analysis as well as influent for the GAC and BAGexperiments conducted at the GF treatability laboratory in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. The sludgegenerated from the pilot study was collected for characterization.

B CAWP51\JOB27337\TREATABW3IAP3.TS 7/20/92 8J9 4 3-4

The pilot-scale aeration experiment was conducted on August 1991 in one ISO-gallon tank using ane bubble diffused aerator extending diagonally across the diameter of the tank. The water was

aerated for 180 minutes at a constant rate and samples were collected at regular intervals forcharacterizing the removal of iron via oxidation. The pH of the water was adjusted to 8 with sodiumhydroxide (NaOH) before the start of the experiment, and was maintained at approximately 7throughout the test

Equipment, materials, and supplies that were needed to perform the metal precipitation and aerationstudies are summarized in Appendix C.

3.3 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS

Bench Study

Kfni

An influent sample was collected for Target Compound List (TCL) Volatile Organic Anarytes(VOAs), Base-Neutral and Acid Extractables (BNAs), pesticides, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs);'arget Anatyte List (TAL) Metals, TAL Cyanide, Cyanide, Fenac®, Total Suspended Solids (TSS),id Volatile Suspended Solids (VSS) analyses, and monitored for pH, temperature, and turbidity.

The supernatant from the screening experiment (Stage 1), conducted to compare the relativeeffectiveness of alum, lime, ferric chloride, and a polymer, was monitored for pH, temperature, andturbidity. The supernatant from Stage 2, conducted with the coagulant that gave the best results inStage 1, was collected for lead, chromium, cadmium, and arsenic analyses, and was monitored forpH, temperature, and turbidity. Once the results from the Stage 2 experiments were received, theferric chloride dosage and pH value that demonstrated the best overall effectiveness in terms ofmetals removal was repeated and the supernatant was collected for TCL VOAs, BNAs, pesticides,PCBs, TAL Metals and Cyanide, Fenac*, lead, chromium, cadmium, and arsenic analyses, and wasmonitored for pH, temperature, and turbidity. The settled solids were mixed and a sample wascollected for TSS and VSS analyses. Table 3-2 summarizes the sampling and analysis plan for thebench study.

B CAWPSl\rOB27337\TRBATABI\CHAP3.TS 7/20/92 839 5 3-5

1sH &3^ crj ECO CO

I

I "

* QCOIO

jtI

j0<l'

.

i

•e

£

\0J

!03

|1

1

*

,«

«!•°lE §«

*1IB

jj

P

fi^S£}

IIJ

11

a.

|ii1

•0

o

s

111

«

o

o

j

0

i1i5

M

«

o

o

|

g

11

1

3

*

0

1

o

i11

o

o

0

0

J

1

1

1

o

o

*

o

o

9

s

*

o

o

TAL Metals

o

11

&

TH

*

o

o

TAL Cyanide

811.&

rH

*

O

0

TCLVOA

g

11

&

Mb---"

*

O

O

j

0

11&

1-1

*

o

o

5i

1s

o

o

*

o

o

%

ri

S3

O

o

*

o

o

1•a

s

00

ff•e

2S

-

«

oo

^

I

1.'5

t

y

e

c

T

(

T

f

30

i•>§u

3

3

3

H

»>

H

1i.

<

(

1H

g3

i

1(H

1O

3-6

d~ H U-r2 K o

i -< ft;.£ ||5 leo1 '9D'i fli - jsM « "2

«p II

. 11<nvimwmmw<nviw<nv)vi<nvi

I§i 1^* 11105 B * ** 9 *J g [2

£S * !l i3* ^ *! I^ 5 H & o I I^ < —« ,s g

iji III i «"«««««»*"««">* I«^" „ sss Ijas i i£ o§a S ^ o

flR3l*693

Pilot Study

During the metal precipitation study, an influent and an effluent sample were collected for TCLVOAs, BNAs, pesticides, PCBs, TAL Metals and Cyanide, Fenac*, TSS, and VSS analyses. Duringthe aeration study, samples were collected at 0,15,30,45,60,90,120,150, and 180 minutes for totaland dissolved iron analyses and were monitored for specific conductivity at each of the time intervals.Table 3-3 summarizes the sampling and analysis plan for the pilot study.

3.4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

The results of the first stage of the bench study are presented in Table 3-4 and show that ferricchloride at a concentration of 10*3 M lowered the turbidity from 104 NTU in the influent to 6 NTUin the supernatant (Figure 3-1). As a result, for the second stage, ferric chloride was selected forevaluation at four different concentrations (10*4,5 x 10"4,10'3, and 2 x 10'3 M) and nine differentpH values. The results for turbidity are presented in Table 3-4; results for the metals lead,chromium, cadmium, and arsenic are presented in Table 3-5. Figures 3-2 through 3-5 present theresults for turbidity removal as a function of pH for the four concentrations of ferric chloride. Aconcentration of 5 x 10"4 M of ferric chloride was the most effective in removing turbidity to below10 NTU over a wide pH range (4.5 to 6.5). Additionally, since the pH of the influent after theaddition of 5 x 10"4 M ferric chloride was about 5.5, no pH adjustment was necessary. The resultswere less pronounced when comparing the relative effectiveness of the ferric chloride dosages formetals removal. Chromium levels in all samples were around the detection limit, and lead wasdetected in two samples (2 x 10"3 M ferric chloride for pH 4.5 and 5.0) at concentrations exceedingthe proposed drinking water standard.

Jar testing was then repeated with 5 x 10"4 M ferric chloride to obtain enough sample for a full scanof TCL organics, Fenac*, and TAL inorganics analyses. These results are presented in Table 3-6.For several results, it was observed that the effluent values where higher than the influent. Resultsthat are lower than the practical quantitation limit (less than 5 to 10 times the method detectionlimit) are not very reliable. Several volatile organic compounds were cointidentally removed duringjar testing; however, the process had no effect on Fenac* removal. For the target inorganiccompounds, cadmium and arsenic were not detected in the influent, and chromium was detectedbelow its drinking water standard; however, it was reduced by about 50 percent. Lead, which was

B C-\WPSWOB27337\TREATABI\CHAP3.TS 7/20/92 &S9 8 3-8 j

TABLE 3-3

SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN FOR PILOT-SCALE METAL PRECIPITATION

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

Parameter

Fenac*TAL Metals

TAL CyanideTCLVOATCLBNA

TO- Pestiddes/PCBsVSSTSSUron (total)PR>n (dissolved)

Spedfic conductivity

MetalPrecipitation

22222

222000

Aeration

00000000999

TotalSamples

222

222

22999

Analytical Method

EPASW 846-8150(a)

EPASW 846-9010

EPA SW 846-8240EPASW 846-8270EPA SW 846-8080EPA 160.4EPA 160.2EPA SW 846-7380EPA SW 846-7380Field monitoring

Note: (a) Refer to Table 3-2, Note (b) for analytical methods for each analyte.

A GWP51\JOB2733ATREATABI\CHAP3\TBL3-3.XS 1031/913:59 1 3-9

B

a«!

fs.

Jar Te

st No

.

•

«I

^X

,

-

•c*

1

1

%X

g

«

'

_

§

<

^

X

a„

«5

§

I

^X

I•<*

*K>

s

'^X

Ferric ch

loride

•0

VS

,

s

'

%

X

j

•

6

„

1

'

O

,

-

8

g

a

i

^

!00

55

'o

3

5

^X

Ferric dl

loride

-

^

5

8

1,X

Ferric ch

loride

-

"

,

§

1

^X

^

fe

«

*1

g

1

1

tX

Ferric ch

loride

'

TH«

p

1

•tX

j-

oo

1

1

tX

0

V,

•0

S

•^X

Ferric dl

loride

-

3-10

g

o

iiSfccp ^w Hi M^

<*J

•a <>*1&

"J3« 0 &;

,

a

i-»

a

g Si

JS

1

oo

05

s;

S

ss

8 8 o 8

oo

3-11

Ii

IO

g«G^S^gsdB>^O ^O C?N ^ ^

f

SB|Sco 2 •< d>< S K 5H « a a;

s.

Io.

i6

3

a

X

o

3-12

<)

<IJ

5.a« Os a

II

I

8H

I

g

a

a i

I

•O

1§Jtf

*Ij

14

1,

'

'

S

1

Is

1»CO^

-*

i•t*

g

g

1

g

3

^X

•8*giQ

I

fH

§

'

3o

•8v>

^X

111{}

I

S

'

1

g

8

^X

.•siI

1

•So

•1

^X

?11o

s

•so

g

1

^X

4*g•§o

«n

g

g

O

8

<e3

^

X

-8io2

g

*i

•a

tX

-81.2

1

i

S

Q

Oc>

g

i

tX

-S

•§o

I

oo

S

•

O

g

oo

^X

•8-io

o

g

•1

•'tX

4"g•iQ

I

S

s

i

1

•g

^X

•S

1o

@

*oo

g

8<o*

tX

•S

1j

i

g

•§

•'^X

t'g1ji

s

g

o0

•8

^X

4'g1O

1

S

•e>

•

5

^X

."g1Q

i

59

g

g

§

g

•^

X

0

"g

^

O

s

•oo

g

8oi

^X

-S

1

*

I

1

1i

3-13

8

I«

ISito8

3

CO

2ggi fe §in H R«MC63 B NLj O « Wea J<5 -^ O«3 S K <H pa Q S

a

S

1§

'

*-

^

tH

O

1

I1i9,1f

„3?

1

6o5

•

1

•«-*§

g

|

tX

4g1

iooT-l

§

«

80

i5

«

X

«gi1

g

•

i

•

§

<•>

X

-8giI

8

s

g

i

•8

*>X

4g1

i

s

•i

g

i

X

•8g1

i

s

g

<s

•1

«X

«gio

*

§

•

5o

•8

IX

4"gii

a

g

g

1

g

g

^X

4g11

*

s

*oo

•800

m

X

„g

i

I

8

g

•o

•1

%X

4gil

8

B

g

i

•"3

r,

X

.0

g1

1

s

s

•8d

o

s

r.

X

0

gii

8

g

g

80

•5

«

X

.g1

1

s

s

•1

•i

<n

X

-8g1

i

«

§

•i

•1

mXd

•8g1

1

a

S

*So

g

8

*£,X

«g1

I

«

§

•i

•g

«

X

4giI

a

S

•§

•800

«XCJ

*giI

CO

3-14

1

55E8

1!w1 -!11* 3 £Nw S ^S<«uIss•*iiS« wa w« Cfi 63 **5||uS wV<£ •< C5H W S

I!rCO

H

I

o

1t'8§0

]a

I^s§1Sro

5

•g

|o

i

CO

%X

^

o

d,

«

*

•§O

i

It,X

i•cfi,

p;

' ! . -t

.

m

i, _ j ill! Ib O O O O *^ O TH O O iS* S £ o o o o 5 < ^ c 3 o o n

I j |io | |go I

is 1€ 02 • • <

3-15

(niN)

3-16 flR30l*702

Ul

CO

!£

(niN) MlPi

3-17

LU9CCoooccocLULL.

LUI-

«

«? *n

'CO

gCQQC

10

•o03

s § ~3 i i o i In£PCS

(niN) Mipjqjnj. 2• • I

3-18

LLIQDCOIOO

tt £01 t

CD

:cQ.

If)

Io o o o o o o sCO IO *fr CO CM *- I

£

I(niN) MjpiqjnjL 1«

"Z.^a

3-19 /

UJoQCO_JXooQCQCUJLL

5 |uCO •—1 »t- rf

* x o« o sS oi I§ f S I ^ I Q.rr ^ "J^ 1 §a Qi>aCQQCDI-

X

CO•os

(HIM) Ajipiqjnj.

fi

II

2

1

tS

1

1

I8SeCO

8f?5

1

CO

-

oCOT-l

| 1,2-Dichloroethane

•o

-0

3*"*

gCO

1 Chlorobenzene

o

TH

00

g

1 2,4-DicMorophenol

1

s

T-l

g

| Diethyl ph

thalate

-

1

^

g

ii

ID

"A

-

$

\ Benzene

i-tA

«

E

1 Toluene

3A

«

ON

1 TricMoroethene

1e

i

^

§

5-CMoro-2-

methylaniline

.S

I

I

o

po

-I

po o

I

1

I

Io«*.

3-21 flR3Qi*707

i

i§

3

I

,»-v331&s"8

I

iTHo0

I

1

i*

6

•S0

ooTHTH

*

1

1

THgo

<OTHTH

§

11«

s

TH§o

TH

g

o

i

a

io

1

1

I

TH

TH§o

3

g

e.s

1

1THso

TH§

81

TH

TH§o

I

•a

1

•Io

oo5

o

o

TH

g1

c*TH§

TfTH§

o

1

A

rH^»

•s

fl

1

*A

TH0s

•0

gII

A

i1

*THso

•oa

&A

0

•o

&

i

•g

i l lw S«9 l-<§•M O

^3-o~l m o

till111!

"1 «?2-Sa -S | § jgo "S - J' g

4>mi r,

5 8a * o o «O O *j « •£ „

1 till s

S J a B5

J ^ISfi•a HH M w t-1O9

1

I

3-22

detected at a concentration exceeding its drinking water standard in the influent, was removed tolow its standard following treatment.

The best conditions tested at the bench level were then scaled up to the pilot level with the additionof 30 minutes of coarse bubble diffused aeration. Table 3-7 presents the results of the influent andsupernatant effluent for TCL organics, Fenac®, and TAL inorganics. Several volatile organiccompounds (VOCs) were coincidentally removed during the metal precipitation process (mostprobably during aeration); however, the process had no effect on Fenac9 removal. For the targetinorganic compounds, lead, cadmium, and arsenic were not detected in the influent, and chromiumwas detected at a concentration lower than its drinking water standard. The presence of lead in theeffluent is an anomaly because it was not detected in the influent. None of the inorganic compoundswere removed by an appreciable amount, except for aluminum, which was reduced by 80 percent;however, several of the compounds were detected at very low concentrations in the influent.

Because iron was reduced by only 10 percent during the pilot study, it was decided to test theremoval of iron by replacing coarse bubble diffusers with fine bubble diffusers and extending thenod of aeration. Samples were collected at regular intervals and filtered through a 0.45/im-filter.per. Table 3-8 and Figure 3-6 present the results of total and dissolved iron concentrations as a

function of time. The results clearly show that fine bubble diffused aeration followed by. filtrationcould substantially remove iron with time.

The oxidation of iron in the aeration can be expressed as follows:

6 Fe+2 + 3/2 02 + 15 HjO - 6 Fe (OH)3 + 12 H+

From the above reaction, two moles of acid are generated for the oxidization of each mole of iron;1.0 mg/L of oxygen is consumed for the oxidization of 7 mg/L of iron.

3.5 COMPARISON TO TEST OBJECTIVES

The test objectives are stated in Section 3.1 of this chapter. The comparison to each test objectiveis stated in the same order in which it appears in that section.

B C\WPS1\IOB27337\TREATABIVCHAP3.TS 7/HW2 &59 23 3-23 SR3014709

«r«oS1

a

1gu

iiT-l

X£2:0B8 gH 3M M

H WW 5

Ei3s- sK ^

to S•i °1COH

s§1i>iH

S

1Pi1Ix

1co0'tj0

O .2 2«g «o

16

19

1

09

•g6 si1

1

8

S

18<*>

|

8T-<

\

S

orH

g

1

1.2-Dichlor

8

"O

ST-l

g

1 Chlorobenz

(t

O

i

1 Trichloroet

1

o

T-l

!

1 2,4-Dichlor

1

S

oo

11

s

1

1

v>

1!

5-Chloro-2-

*A

g

o

Benzene

Inorganics

ooo

TH

0

T-C

o

o

3

I

T-l

O

«0NOT-l

<*>Calcium

1

o

so

T-l

gO1 Chromium

«=2oo

o

o

1o

*«••aS

S

So

s

1

1

o

o

3

1

0

|

1a'•8Q

|||w*

Influent

e£*

1&X1h- 1

§

T-l

O

i

TH

1•ao

1

1

§o

CO

T-t

cot-H

wfi11

1

r-too

«nco

e.2CO1(2

1

1O

So

80

I

1go

sCO

g

i

I

T— i§o

55o

T-l

0

o

S

1O

co§o

Tfoo

•o

1

3.25 f l R 3 0 l » 7 l l

TABLE 3-8

AERATION EXPERIMENT RESULTS

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

Time of SampleCollection(minutes)

01530456090120150180

Total Iron(mg/L)

186224220218219230213212217

Dissolved Iron(mg/L)

167

127

93.066.537.830315.611.47.50

Specific Conductivity(//mhos)

3800

3700

370035003400340034003400,3400

Note: " Detection limit for iron - 0.03 (mg/L)

A G\WP51\IOB27337\TREATABlyCHAP3YIBL3-8.TS HV31/914*15 1 3-26

CO

D UJ(/> K-£ 55

<?jut •*• •••

mDC

z <

Ul

oCD C

tt ' °

o00

co_ (0O i;CD £r- (j)

OCo

0)

"5(A

OCM

ooc1

o goo Ep

(0

9 IoO

O *<5

(1/BUJ) UOI1BJ1U90UOO UOJ|

•n(Dri

3'27 flR30ti7l3

• The preliminary bench study experiments demonstrated that out of the fourcoagulants tested (lime, alum, ferric chloride, and a polymer), ferric chloride was themost effective in removing turbidity.

• The next stage of experiments consisted of evaluating four ferric chloride dosagesover a wide range of pH values. The results show that a dosage of 5 x 10"4 M offerric chloride was the most effective. Additionally, no pH adjustment was necessaryafter addition of 5 x 10"* M ferric chloride to the groundwater because the pH valuewas in the range in which ferric chloride showed the best results.

The results for the four metals (lead, chromium, cadmium, and arsenic) and for thefour concentrations of ferric chloride over a wide range of pH values showed thatnone of the metals exceeded their respective drinking water standards, except forlead which was exceeded in two samples (2 x 10*3 M ferric chloride at pH values of4.5 and 5.0). In jar tests conducted with 5 x 10"4 M ferric chloride and samples sentfor TCL organics, Fenac*, and TAL inorganic analysis, some VOCs werecoincidentally removed during the testing, but there was no removal of Fenac®.Lead was the only metal of concern that exceeded its drinking water standard in theinfluent, but it was reduced to below its standard after treatment.

? • The settling characteristic could not be evaluated due to the low volume of solidsgenerated in the bench study; however, settling characteristics were evaluated for thepilot study metal precipitation sludge and are presented in Chapter 8.0 under SludgeDisposal.

• The conditions for the best results observed during the bench study were scaled upto the pilot level and samples sent for TCL organics, Fenac*, and TAL inorganicanalysis. Similar to what was observed in the bench study, some VOCs werecoincidentally removed during the metal precipitation process (most probably duringaeration), but the process had no effect on Fenac* removal. None of the fourmetals of concern were detected in the influent at concentrations exceeding theirrespective drinking water standards. However, treatment of iron was not veryeffective when using coarse bubble diffused aeration followed by precipitation withferric chloride.

B C\WPS1\JOB27337VTREATABIVCHAP3.TS 7/BV92 &59 28 3-28

Aeration using fine bubble diffusers, followed by filtration using a 0.45-/tm filterpaper, was very effective in reducing iron concentrations over time. In the beginningof the aeration study, 4.3 liters of 1.0 N NaOH was required to adjust the pH to 7for 150 gallons of groundwater; a total of 0.8 liters of 1.0 N NaOH was required tomaintain the pH at 7 throughout the study.

B C\WPSWOB27337\TREATABrCHAP3.TS 7/20/92 839 29 3-29 3 R 3 0 U 7 I 5

ARSONS

4.0 FILTRATION

Filtration was conducted at the bench scale to evaluate the effectiveness of vacuum filtration inremoving unsettleable solids from the supernatant after metal precipitation. Two supernatantsamples from the jar test experiment which gave the best results in metals removal were filteredthrough a 0.45-//m membrane filter and the turbidity was measured before and after filtration. Theresults are presented in Table 4-1. Vacuum filtration using a 0.45-jim membrane filter did not offersignificant solids removal; therefore, further filtration study was not necessary in treating thesupernatant However, filtration can be used as a polishing step if installed before the GAC column.In treating sludge, vacuum filtration is an important step to reduce water content of the metal sludgegenerated in the coagulation/precipitation, as will be shown in Section 8.0. Equipment, materials,and supplies that were needed to perform the filtration study are summarized in Appendix C.

D D:\WP51\JOB27337VrRBATABl\CHAP4.TS 7/17/92 931 1 4-1 fl R 3 0 U 7 I 7

TABLE 4-1

BENCH-SCALE FILTRATION EXPERIMENT

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

Sample Number

12

Turbidity (NTU)Unfiltered

3.43.3

Filtered

1.121.01

D D:\WP5WOB27337\TRBATABKIBI/»-l.TS 7/16/92 1222 1 4-2 A D Q f) 1 "7 I n

5.0 ACTIVATED SLUDGE

5.1 OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the activated sludge (AS) treatability study is to evaluate the feasibility of using anAS process as a treatment option for the Drake groundwater. Specific objectives of the study aresummarized as follows:

• Evaluate the biodegradation potential of the Drake groundwater using 5-dayBiochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) tests using acclimated sludge seed

• Pretreat the Drake groundwater (heavy metals removal) through aeration.i

• Characterize the pretreated groundwater for the application of AS process.

• Develop kinetic coefficients for the removal of organics.

• Evaluate sludge settling characteristics.

• Develop design and operational parameters.

• Evaluate the fate of volatile organics during aeration.

5.2 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND PROCEDURES

This section details the experimental design and procedures for the treatment of the Drakegroundwater using a set of bench-scale AS systems. The proposed AS study was motivated bybiodegradation potential test results that indicated a substantial traction of oxygen-demandingorganic matter may be oxidized biologically if a sufficient acclimation of sludge is achieved. Afterstarting up the bench-scale AS reactors, the sludge was seriously affected by the elevated levels oftoxic organic constituents in the groundwater. Even after numerous attempts to revive and restockthe sludge, the biological activity continued to deteriorate. Consequently, experimental design androcedures for the AS study have been modified to address the problems that were encountered

during the treatability study.

B C\WPS1\IOB27337\TREATABIVCHAP5.TS 8/5/922:44 1 5-1 flR30i»720

To present the reasons behind the corrective actions taken, the proposed and modified experimentaldesign and procedures are presented side by side. First, the design and procedures for the sludgeacclimation and biodegradation potential test are described. Second, the pilot-scale pretreatmcntdesign and procedures are presented. Lastly, the design and procedures for the bench-scale ASstudy, including acute toxicity test, zone settling velocity, and volatile organics balance, are describedin detail.

5.2.1 Sludge Acclimation

AS samples were obtained from three different wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs): theKalamazoo Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment (PACT®) Plant, the Baltimore Back RiverWWTP, and the DuPont Chamber Works PACT* Plant. The description of seed sources and theacclimation procedures are presented in Section 7.2.

The biodegradation potential of the Drake groundwater was evaluated using the Chemical OxygenDemand (COD) and BOD5 analyses after the 8-week acclimation period. The BOD5 of thepretreated Drake groundwater was measured using the acclimated seeds from the three sources anda standard seed recommended by the Standard Methods.

After performing the biodegradation potential test, the Back River and Dupont seeds were furthercultured in two separate 24-liter glass tanks. The pretreated Drake groundwater was added to thetanks to make up for the evaporation loss during the aeration. The sludge acclimation continuedfor approximately one year.

5.2.2 OnsHe Pretreatment

In April 1992, another groundwater sample was collected from the Drake Chemical Site andpretreated onsite to prepare the groundwater for the AS study. The sample pretreatment involveda precipitation of metals through aeration followed by rapid mixing, flocculation, and settling.

The metal precipitation treatability study previously conducted by Gannett Fleming (GF) in August1991 indicated that the aeration of groundwater followed by filtration was the most effective meansto remove the reduced form of iron. The groundwater sample required for the biological treatmentevaluation was pretreated following GFs preliminary design of the metals removal system.

B C\WF51\JOB27337\TREATABI\CHAP5.TS 80/922:44 2 5-2

flR3Ql*72l

After extracting approximately 500 gallons of groundwater from Well TW-1 in Zone 2, two0-gallon samples were aerated for one hour using fine bubble flexible membrane aerators whileaintaining the pH in the tank above 7. Approximately 3.1 liters and 2.6 liters of 5.0 N soda ash

were added to each tank to control the pH around 8.0 where the iron oxidation rate is optimum.Two minutes of rapid mixing after adding 1 mg/L of Magnifloc 835A (an anionic polyelectrolytefrom American Cyanamid) followed the aeration. Twenty minutes of slow mixing was provided topromote flocculation of the solids. Finally, the solids were settled overnight, and the supernatantwas hand siphoned to a collection tank. The supernatant was used as the influent to the ASreactors. Required equipment and supplies are presented in Appendix C.

5.2.3 Bench-Scale Activated Sludge Study

Four continuous-flow, completely mixed reactors were operated at different operating conditions forapproximately nine weeks. The experimental set-up is depicted in Figure 5-1. All four reactors withan individual total volume of approximately 10 liters are made out of acrylic and have the sameconfigurations. The reactor is divided into two compartments to simulate a conventional AS system.

e larger of the two compartments provides the aerobic zone where the bulk of biooxidation takes'ace. The smaller compartment, which is separated by an adjustable baffle, provides a quiescent

zone where sludge can settle. Once a sludge blanket has been established in the clarifier, the settledsludge is recycled from the settling zone to the aeration basin by gravity. All reactors were operatedat an effective aeration volume of 5 and 6.4 liters at different stages of the study. The effectiveaeration volume was increased from 5 liters to 6.4 liters during the study by tilting the reactors toprovide a reactor bottom slope which was more conducive to returning the sludge from the clarifierto the aeration basin.

All instruments and pumps were calibrated and set up before beginning the experiment. The food-to-microorganism (F/M) ratio for each reactor was determined by controlling the feed rate. Themaximum F/M ratio was set by reducing the hydraulic detention time to approximately five hours.

Using a COD:N:P ratio of 100:4:1, the pretreated Drake groundwater was supplemented with dibasicpotassium phosphate to raise the phosphorous concentration to 4 mg/L.

mixture of acclimated Back River and DuPont seed organisms was settled and the supernatantfecanted until the mixed liquor volatile suspended solids (MLVSS) concentration of approximately

B G\WP5WOB27337\TREATABI\CHAP5.TS 8/5/92 2:44 3 5-3

;,500 mg/L was achieved in the acclimation tank. Each bench-scale reactor was filled, with the mixeduor up to 5 liters while the air was supplied at approximately 5 scfh. The air stream was split four

ways to individual air flowmeters mounted on each reactor. Finally, the air entered the aerationbasin as fine bubbles through an air stone. The air flow rates were adjusted to maintain at least2.0 mg/L of dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration and to provided sufficient mixing in the reactor.The air flow rates fluctuated from 3 to 7 scfh. The pretreated groundwater was delivered toReactors 1 and 2 from a common feed tank using a gravity feed mechanism. For Reactors 3 and4, peristaltic pumps provided the feed out of 55-gallon drums containing the pretreated Drakegroundwater. The reactor effluents were collected in four separate containers.

Once the bench-scale AS study was ready to begin, the sludge from the Back River and DuPontplants were mixed together in equal proportions, and the mixture was used to seed the bench-scalereactors. Because a significant amount of solids washed out from the four reactors, an additionalsludge was required in the reactor. To enhance the growth of biomass remaining in the acclimationtank, 10 to 20 mL of ISOMIL* (a baby formula) was added to the tank daily. Feeding ISOMIL®continued while adding the Drake groundwater that was pretreated by aeration (April 1992 pilot

) to make up for the evaporation loss in the acclimation tank.

The reactors were started up after transferring the acclimated sludge from the acclimation tank tothe reactors. Most of the acclimated sludge stock was used to inoculate the reactors except for asmall quantity reserved for emergency. The feed rates were set lower than the rates specified in theGF Work Plan to gradually introduce the pretreated Drake groundwater to the reactors. Thereactors were loaded at F/M ratios ranging from 0.05 to 0.20 day'1, assuming 2,500 mg/L of MLVSSin the reactor. The feed flow rates were calculated assuming a COD of 111 mg/L, which wasobserved during the previous onsite groundwater pretreatment (May 1991).

The routine reactor monitoring program consisted of the following:

• Measuring effluent volumes and taking composite effluent samples• Measuring DO concentrations and oxygen uptake rates (OURs)• Measuring solids volume indexes (SVIs)• Measuring pH in the feed, the reactor, and the effluent• Measuring influent and reactor temperatures• Measuring turbidity in the reactor and the effluent

B CAWP5I\JOB27337\TREATABIVCHAP5.TS 6/5/922:44 5 5-5

• Collecting samples for MLVSS and Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids (MLSS) analyses,as necessary

• Baffle height adjustment as necessary

The bench-scale AS systems were operated at different operating conditions by varying the sludgeage. The steady-state F/M ratios were targeted at 0.05,0.08,0.14, and 020 day1 for Reactors 1,2,3, and 4, respectively, while maintaining 2,500 mg/L of MLVSS by wasting an appropriate amountof excess sludge from the reactors. However, the process control parameter, the solids retentiontime (SRT) could not be manipulated because of poorly settling sludge. Once the microorganismswere severely inhibited by elevated levels of contaminants, the sludge settlcability quicklydeteriorated and washed out of the darifier. The mixed liquor concentration continued to declineas the solids washout was further aggravated by the lack of sludge yield. The net loss of sludge inthe system rendered the control of SRT virtually impossible. For several days after the reactor start-up, a substantial amount of solids washed out from all four reactors.

The first corrective action taken was to immediately reduce the feed rates to mitigate the toxicoverload. The second corrective action was to add the acclimated reserve sludge to the reactors.However, a turnaround in performance was not observed following the addition. The reactoroperation was suspended to revive the potentially dormant microorganisms. The effort to reclaimsludge involved feeding ISOMTL* without the Drake groundwater. The growth of reserve sludgeremaining in the acclimation tank was also promoted by feeding ISOMIL* and making up theevaporative loss with the Drake groundwater.

Even after approximately six weeks of effort to recover the AS system, the microorganisms did notmultiply enough to start up the reactors again. To supplement the reactors with healthy sludge, asludge sample was collected from the Back River WWTP. Because the supplementary sludge wasnot acclimated to the Drake groundwater, inhibition upon exposure was anticipated. Before addingthe unacclimated sludge to the reactors, acute toxicity tests were performed.

The objective of the acute toxicity test was to evaluate the potential benefit of supplementing thereactors with unacclimated Back River sludge by determining the acute toxicity threshold of theDrake groundwater for the stock of microorganisms. As the microorganisms are exposed to asubstrate source which contains potentially inhibitory constituents, the OUR may increase if themicroorganisms have been underfed and not inhibited by potentially toxic compounds. If the OUR

B CAWP51\Kffi27337\TREATABI\CHAP5.TS 8/5/92 2:44 6 5-6 'a r» <"> n I ~l O CflR JUM. / £0

remains the same, the microorganisms are working at their maximum substrate utilization rate. Ase microorganisms are exposed to increasing levels of toxic compounds, the OUR may reach a

plateau, then decline once the threshold point of acute toxicity is reached.

OUR was measured using a DO probe. A 500-mL flask was filled with mixed liquor from theaeration chamber of the reactors. The probe was inserted in the flask and water-sealed to preventthe transfer of oxygen from the atmosphere to the mixed liquor. The output signal from the DOmeter was sent to the chart recorder to obtain a graphical representation of DO concentration overa period of approximately five minutes. The slope of straight portion of the DO profile was takenas the OUR measured in mg/L-hr.

The acute toxicity testing involved establishing an initial OUR of the unacclimated Back River sludgeand monitoring OUR as increasing fractions of the unacclimated Back River supernatant wasreplaced with the Drake groundwater. The test involved the following steps:

1. Aerating the Back River mixed liquor for 30 minutes.2. Measuring OUR.3. Settling the sludge..4. Decanting a fixed volume.5. Replenishing the decanted volume with the Drake groundwater.6. Repeating Steps 1 through 5.

During the acute toxicity test, the fraction of the Drake groundwater in the unacclimated Back Rivermixed liquor was increased up to 60 percent of the mixed liquor over a period of three hours. TheOUR was measured every half hour while increasing the fraction of the Drake groundwater fromzero percent, 6.7 percent, 13 percent, 24 percent, 39 percent, to 60 percent.

After aerating the unacclimated Back River sludge overnight, one liter of sludge each was added toReactors 1 and 2. Because a complete washout had occurred in Reactors 3 and 4,15 liters of theBack River sludge was added to each reactor. To aid the sludge return from the clarifier to theaeration basin, the reactors were tilted. The effective reactor volume increased from 5 liters to>.4 liters. The feeding of the Drake groundwater and sampling resumed.

B CWPS1\IOB27337\TREATABIVCHAP5.TS 8/5/92 i44 7 5-7

Although the reactors were restocked with the unacclimated Back River sludge, the mixed liquorcontinued to get lighter in color while the sludge collected in the darifier. The problem was moresevere in Reactors 3 and 4. All of the reserve sludge and Reactor 4 sludge were added to Reactor 3.After sludge had been completely mixed in Reactor 3, half of the Reactor 3 mixed liquor wastransferred to Reactor 4. With the permission of USAGE, the influent to the reactors was reducedto about one-third of the original concentration. All reactors were tilted back to the fiat position,making the effective volume back to five liters. The reactor operations resumed and continued fornine days until the shutdown.

The fate of volatile organics during the treatment was evaluated by performing a mass balance ofvolatile organics in the influent, effluent, and the offgas. The volatile organics were measured in theoffgas using a portable gas chromatograph (GC). The aeration rate was measured using the airflowmeter. The VOC sample was taken only from the Reactor 1 influent and effluent.

The solids flux curve shows the relationship between the allowable solids flux to the darifier atvarious operating MLSS concentrations in the aeration basin. This relationship is used to size thedarifier. Because of the failure to maintain solids in the aeration basin, zone settling velocity (ZSV)tests were not performed.

5.3 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS

5.3.1 Onsite Pretreatment

Representative groundwater samples before and after the onsite pretreatment were collected andscanned for TCL organics, TAL inorganics, Fenac*, and other parameters pertinent to theevaluation of biological activities. The total number of samples taken during the pretreatment ofgroundwater is presented in Table 5-1 for each parameter.

532 Activated Sludge Study

The sampling plan proposed in the GF AS Work Plan was modified because of the unsatisfactoryperformance of the bench-scale AS systems. The AS systems were operated for nine weeks,

B C\WP51VTCffl27337\TREATABIVCHAP5.TS S/B/92 330 8 5-8

TABLES-1

SUMMARY OF SAMPLE ANALYSIS FOR THE GROUNDWATER PRETREATMENT

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

1Parameter!

VOA

BNA

Pesticides/PCBs

TAL-Inorganics

Fenac*

VSS

TSS

TOC

LcOD

FBODSTKN-N

NE -N

NO3-N

Orthophosphate

TDS

Total

Number of Analyses

UntreatedGroundwater

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

15

PretreatedGroundwater

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

15

QC Samples

RinsateHank

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

FieldDuplicate

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

Total

4

4

4

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

38

Analytical Method

EPASW 846-8240

EPASW 846-8270

EPASW 846-8080

Compound dependent*')

EPASW 846-8150

EPA 160.4

SM209C

EPA SW 846-9060

EPA 410.1

SM507

EPA 351.4

EPA 350.3

EPA 353.3

EPA 365.2

EPA 160.1

i

B C:\WP51VOB27337\TREATABI\TABLE5-1.TS 8/5/92 8:53 1 5.9 3 R 3 0 7 2 8

TABLE 5-1 (cont'd.)SUMMARY OF SAMPLE ANALYSIS FOR THE GROUNDWATER PRETREATMENTDRAKE CHEMICAL SITEPAGE 2

Notes: (a) Analvte t Analysis Method Detection Limits ftng/U

Aluminum SW-846 7020 .1Antimony SW-846 7041 .005Anenic SW-846 7060 .005Barium SW-846 7080 .1Beiyilium SW-846 7091 .001Cadmium SW-846 7131 .001Calcium SW-846 7140 .01Chromium SW-846 7191 .005Cobalt SW-846 7201 .005Copper SW-8467210 .01Iron SW-846 7380 .02Lead SW-846 7421 .005Magnesium SW-846 7450 .01Manganese SW-846 7460 .01Mercury SW-846 7471 .0002Nickel SW-8467520 .03Potassium SW-846 7610 .01Selenium SW-846 7740 .005Silver SW-846 7760 .01Sodium SW-846 7770 .01Thallium SW-846 7841 .005Vanadium SW-846 7911 .005Zinc SW-8467950 .01Cyanide SW-846 9010 .005

QC samples were taken at approximately 1 for every 20 samples. The ratio is based on the number of samplesfor the entire length of the AS treatabflity study.

B C\\WSl\TOT27337\TREATABrvTABLE5-l.TS 8/5/92 8:53 2 BR'3flli79Q

five weeks longer than the proposed duration of the study. The duration of the study was extendedrecover the microorganisms that were injured by the high concentrations of toxicants in the Drake

groundwater. The total number of samples taken during the study is presented for each parameterin Table 5-2.

Routine monitoring of the system, including measuring pH, DO, temperature, feed flow, and theturbidity was performed during the entire length of the study. The frequency of routine monitoringvaried during the study depending on the operational mode (e.g., routine monitoring was lessfrequent during the sludge recovery mode than the normal operational mode).

The effluent grab samples were collected three times per week directly from the effluent collectiontank. The samples were then filtered using qualitative filter paper to remove biological solidsbecause a high level of solids obscures analytical results.

tj.i

Tiy<

At the end of the AS study, a full organic scan including VOCs was performed on the Reactor 1effluent. The selection was based on a conjecture that the operating condition for Reactor 1 wouldmost favorable for the biodegradation of toxic organic contaminants because of its long solids anddraulic retention times. VOCs were also measured in the offgas emitted during the aeration.

VOCs in the offgas were analyzed in the GF treatability laboratory using a portable GC. Theambient concentration of volatile organics was also measured to subtract the backgroundinterference. VOCs in the offgas were measured using a portable GC from the headspace in eachreactor which was operated with a cover.

5.4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

5.4.1 Sludge Acclimation

Five parameters (TOC, COD, BOD5, TKN-N, and ammonia-nitrogen [NHg-N]) were measured usingthe pretreated Drake groundwater sample taken during the May, 1991 field activity (see Table 5-3).BOD is a measure of oxygen required for biological decomposition of organic matter; CODmeasures the amount of oxygen required for chemical oxidation of organic matter; and TOCeasures the organically bound carbon, and unlike COD, it is independent of the oxidation state of'e organic matter. The ratio of COD/TOC is useful in determining biodegradation potential. A

high ratio represents a lower oxidation state of the organic carbon which is readily available as ani

B G\WP51\JOB27337\TREATABI\CHAPS.TS 8/5/922:44 II 5-11

TABLE 5-2

SUMMARY OF SAMPLE ANALYSIS FOR THE AS STUDY

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

Parameters

VGA

BNAVOCsOffgasFenac*VSSTSSTOCCODBOD5

TKN:NNHg-N

NO3-NOrthophosphateTotal

Numberof

Anarysis

2141249491238121212126221

QC SamplesRinsateBlank

00

!<»>00000000001

FieldDuplicate

101244242222026

Total

316145353144214.1414146248

Analytical Method

EPASW 846-8240EPASW 846-8270

Field analysisEPA SW 846-8150

EPA 160.4SM209C

EPASW 846-9060EPA 410.1SM507

EPA 351.4EPA 350.3EPA 3533EPA 365.2

'

Note: (a) The rinsate blank for the offgas sample denotes the background measurement.

QC samples were taken at approximately 1 for every 20 samples. The ratio isbased on the number of samples for the entire length of the AS treatability study.

B G\WPSI\JOB27337\TREA.TABI\TABLE«.TS 8/S92 &St I 5-12

AR30l*73l

H

5

1§E•J pgj

1 31 1

SLUDGE AND

DRAKE C

§0gs

§

C!

1:1,5,

9 13

|lj|

Ijf

*Il| 1 S iiSia,gi

centrations in

ted Supernatant

Dupont Seed

(mg/L)

<§|liC +•*

iff§11jjIcu

VIo

1

£

g

R

u

q

1

1

1

i-iTH

Q8

o

M

s»-4

S

w

cfs

q

^

aS

1

8

1

•

|

$

^

'

,_

i

. . „ ... _

•s

1 ' •1+•*

IiT3s -§ |

|| |fl |J2 <* eo! 1< 2iZ 'S, «

i•! S« g

5'13

energy source for microbial growth. A ratio of 3.3 observed for the Drake groundwater representsa condition which may facilitate biological activity.

The biodegradation potential of the pretreated Drake groundwater was evaluated by determiningthe degradable fraction of the total oxygen demand. Three additional BOD5 analyses for the samegroundwater sample were performed using acclimated seeds from DuPont, Back River, andKalamazoo WWTPs, respectively. The results presented in Table 5-3 and Figure 5-2 indicate thatthe seed from the DuPont and Back River WWTPs showed much higher activity than the seed fromthe Kalamazoo WWTP even though they were acclimated under the same condition. The seed fromBack River was able to degrade 90 percent of the COD (111 mg/L) with a resulting BOD5 of100 mg/L. Seventy-two percent of the COD was biologically oxidized using the DuPont seed.However, neither the Kalamazoo seed nor the seed suggested by the Standard Method exhibitedbiological activity. Hence, it may be concluded that the seed source and the acclimation of sludgeto the Drake groundwater are important factors for the biological treatment of the groundwater.

5.42 Onsite Pretreatment

The sample analysis of the Drake groundwater before and after the pretreatment is presented inTable 5-4. The pretreatment was effective in removing the reduced form of iron. The influent ironconcentration was reduced from 545 mg/L to 0.44 mg/L which is a 99.9 percent removal. Theaefation was also effective in stripping VOCs. After the aeration, chlorobenzene was reduced from2,100 pg/Lto 440 jtg/L, and 1,2-dichloroethane was reduced from 290 /tg/L to 130 jtg/L. Seraivolatileorganic compounds (SVOCs) such as 1,2-dichlorobenzene and 1,4-dichlorobenzene were notdetectable after the aeration. Phenolic compounds such as 2,4-dichlorophenol, 2-chlorophenol, andphenol were reduced by 12 percent, 29 percent, and 15 percent, respectively.

5.43 Bench-Scale Activated Sludge Study

Influent Characterization

The analytical results for the reactor influent are summarized in Table 5-5. The groundwatercharacteristics following the onsite pretreatment using coarse bubble aerators in August 1991 are alsosummarized in the table to highlight the significant changes in the groundwater characteristics. The

B GVWPSl\J{ffl27337VTREATABIVCHAP5.TS 5/5/922:44 14 5-14 . _.

m

mgo

Cl/Buj) pueuiao uaBAxo |co

TABLE 5-4

GROUNDWATER CHARACTERISTICS BEFORE AND AFTER THE PRETREATMENT

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

Parameter

TOCCODBOD5

TKN-NNH3-N

NO3-NPO4-P

TSS

vssTDS

UntreatedGroundwater(mg/L)

146.058(*>12

186175100<»>0.04288428,240

PretreatedGroundwater(mg/L)

134.342<a>3190183ioow0.0311108,090

DetectionLimit(mg/L)

0.51.01.01.00.10.10.021.01.01.0

PercentRemoval

8None75NoneNoneNone2596762

Inorganics, TotalCyanideAluminumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronMagnesiumManganesePotassiumSodiumZinc

0.014 A0.2285ND0.0550.03054543532.8153846

0.140

. 0,023

ND1180.019ND0.020.4434920.31311,0900.100

0.005

0.10.010.050.0050.020.030.010.010.010.010.01

None5059None>903399.9203814None29

B CAWP51\IOB27337\TREATABI\TABLES-4.TS 8/5/92 934 1 fit

5'16

TABLE 5-4 (cont'd.)OUNDWATER CHARACTERISTICS BEFORE AND AFTER THE PRETREATMENT

CHEMICAL SITEPAGE 2

ParameterUntreated

Groundwater(mg/L)

PretreatedGroundwater(mg/L)

DetectionLimit(mg/L)

PercentRemoval

PCBs and Pesticides

VOCs

Fenac®Dieldrin4,4'-DDT

170.00013ND

21.0ND

0.00046

1.00.00005

0.0001

NoneNoneNone

1,2-DichloroethaneChlorobenzene

0.292.1

0.130.44

0.10.1

55

79

BNAs1,2-Dichlorobenzene1,4-Dichlorobenzene

2,4-Dichlorophenol2,4-Dimethylphenol2-ChlorophenolPhenol

0.0250.0190.1700.0110.017

0.020

NDND0.150ND0.0120.017

0.0100.0100;0100.010

0.010

0.010

>60>47

12

>929

15

Notes: (a) These analytical data are rejectedND Not Detected

B C\WP51\JOB27337\TREATABI\TABLBS-4.TS 5S/92 934 2 5-J7 « D O p J, "7 O C

TABLE 5-5

INFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS AND PROJECTED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

Parameter

TOC

COD

BOD5

TKN-N

NHj-N

NO3-N

P04-P

Total Dissolved Solids

Total Suspended Solids

Volatile Suspended Solids

GroundwaterPretreated

in April 1992(mg/L)

1343

42

2

190

183

100

0.03

8,090

11

10

GroundwaterPretreatedin May 1991(mg/L)

33

111

2

56

43

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Ordinance 318Limits**)(mg/L)

NR

NR

NR

NR

67.0

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NPDES PermitLimits )(mg/L)

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Total Inorganics

Cyanide

Aluminum

Cadmium

CalciumVJl ftfT fljfl

Cobalt

Copper

Iron

Lead

Magnesium

Manganese

Potassium

Silver

Sodium

Vanadium

Zinc

0.023

ND

ND

118

0.019

ND

0.020

0.440

ND

349

203

131

ND

1,090

ND

0.100

0,013

0.100

ND

165

0.015

0.060

ND

184

0.009

105

153

41.9

0.020

395

ND

0.170

0.6

NR

0.1

NR

2.0/0.06®

NR

0.302

10.1

0.7

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

0.332

NR

NR

0.0067

NR

NR

NR

0.026

NR

0.031

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

0.18

B CAWP51\JOB27337\IREATABI\TABLES-5.TS 8/5/92922 1 C 1O

8 «R30I*737

'ABLE 5-5 (cont'd.),UENT CHARACTERISTICS AND PROJECTED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

RAKE CHEMICAL SITEPAGE 2

ParameterGroundwaterPretreated

in April 1992(mg/L)

GroundwaterPretreatedin May 1991(tag/L)

Ordinance 318Limits**)(mg/L)

NPDES PermitLimits(mg/L)

Organic*

Fenac*

4,4'-DDT

1,2-Dichlproethane

Chlorobenzene

Tricbloroethene

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

Unknown cfaloroanfline

5-Chloro-2-methyl aniline

2,4-Dichloropbenol

2,4-Dimethylphenol

2-Chlorophenol

Phenol

Pbenolics, Total as (C OH)

Total Cyanates as CNO

21

0.00046

0.130

0.440

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.150

ND

0.012

0.017

NA

NA

3.3

ND

110

0.530

0.010

ND

ND

0.028

0.045

0.021

ND

ND

ND

NA

NA

NR

MR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

1.0

LO

NR

NR

NR

0.3

NR

0.97

0.87

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Notes: (a) The Ordinance 318 limits are monthly average pretreatoient limits for indirect dischargers.(b) The NPDES permit limits shown are monthly average permit limits for the City of Lock Haven

WWTP.(c) Total Chromium/Hexavalent ChromiumNA Not AnalyzedND Not DetectedNR Not Regulated

B C:\WP51\JOB2733ATREATABI\TABLE5-5.TS 8/5/92 9:22 2 5_jp fi D Q f] f, "7 O Q

value of organic parameters such as TOC, COD, and BOD5 and nitrogen compounds for the reactorinfluent increased substantially compared to the previously observed values. The value of theparameters listed above increased approximately 23 to 4.3 times the values observed during thebiodegradation potential test, whereas the concentration of Fenac* increased from 3,300 /tg/L to21,000 /ig/L. The increase in organic concentrations raises some concern because of a possibleincrease in the concentration of potentially toxic compounds. The BODS test using the standardseed did not indicate any biological activity. The nutrient requirement for nitrogen is satisfied, andthe addition of nitrogen is not necessary. However, phosphorous must be added to the Drakegroundwater if a biological treatment system is to be utilized because the groundwater is deficientin phosphorous.

The dark reddish color exhibited by the pretreated groundwater may be due to humic substancebecause iron was almost completely removed during the pretreatment. Itwas also visually noted thatthe color developed during the pretreatment and the bench-scale study. Color developmentfollowing aeration has been observed in other cases when natural organics have been found in thewastewater. Humic substance is biologically recalcitrant because of its complex molecular structure.

The discharge limitations for the Drake groundwater are not developed as of now. NationalPollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits for the City of Lock Haven WWTPand City Ordinance 318 were used to identify target compounds and estimate treatmentrequirements for the Drake groundwater. The comparison of the reactor influent and projecteddischarge limits are presented in Table 5-5.

The TAL inorganic compounds in the influent are all below the projected effluent limitations forthe Drake treatment system. Unless the discharge limitations for the Drake effluent are morestringent than the projected effluent limits, complications with inorganics are not anticipated.

Organic compounds of concern are Fenac6 and chlorobenzene. Currently, a limit on Fenac* hasnot been established. The high concentration of Fenac0 observed after pretreatment may need tobe reduced if a limit is established. As mentioned in Section 5.42, chlorobenzene was partiallyremoved during pretreatment using fine bubble diffused aerators. A further reduction ofchlorobenzene may be required if the direct discharge option is to be used under a NPDES permit

B C\WP51\JOB27337\TREATABI\CHAPS.TS 8/5/922:44 20 5-20

AR3QU739

•/VS 4

^ as

Equivalent to that of the City of Lock Haven WWTP. The phenolic compounds may need to bemoved in order to comply with Ordinance 318. The NH -N concentration exceeds the limit

allowed by Ordinance 318; therefore, ammonia removal may be required.

Acute Toxicitv Test

Acute toxicity testing results are presented in Table 5-6. The test results indicated that themicroorganisms were not adversely affected by up to 60 percent Drake groundwater (60 Drake/40dilution) during the three-hour test period The initial drop in OUR after exposure to 13 percentDrake groundwater recovered after three hours of aeration. Based on the test results, it appearsthat the unacclimated Back River sludge is not inhibited by up to 60 percent Drake groundwater inthree hours.

The OUR measurement taken the following day dropped to 14 mg/L-hr. The cause for the dropin OUR may have been due to latent inhibition or a lack of substrate. The OUR increased to30 mg/L-hr immediately after adding 2 mLof ISOMIL*. To rule out the possibility of preferentialjbstrate selection for easily degradable feed such as ISOMIL9, another Back River sludge sample

tested under 20 percent Drake groundwater. The OUR reading for the 20 percent Drakegroundwater increased to 24 mg/L-hr, which is in the range of OURs observed on the previous day.It appears that the OUR had dropped overnight because of the lack of substrate. Acute toxicity testresults indicate that unacclimated Back River sludge may be able to utilize at least up to 60 percentdilution of the pretreated Drake groundwater. However, the test results should be interpreted withcaution because of the limited length of the testing period.

Operating Data Evaluation

This section presents a qualitative analysis of the reactor performance and additional informationobtained from corrective actions taken to recover the deteriorating activity of microorganisms.

The chronological operating data for the AS systems are presented in Table 5-7. The COD andsolids numbers presented in Table 5-7 show a wide spread. The influent COD varied from 58 to8 rog/L and effluent COD numbers as high as 705 rag/L were observed. Based on an influentC of 134 mg/L and assuming a COD/TOC ratio of 3.3, the influent COD is estimated to be

B GWP51\JOB27337\TREATABIVCHAP5.TS 8/5/922:44 21 5-21

TABLE 5-6

ACUTE TOXICITY TEST RESULTS

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

Time(rain.)

0306090120150

Fraction of DrakeGroundwater(percent)

06.7132439

60

Oxygen UptakeRate

(mg/L-hr.)

272921232528

B GVWPS1\IOB27337\TREATABI\TABLEM.TS 8/5/92 IftOfi 1 5-22

TABLE 5-7

SUMMARY OF OPERATING DATA FOR THE AS STUDY

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

Date InfluentEffluent

Reactor! Reactor 2 ReactorS Reactor 4

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD, mg/L)

13-Apr-92

22-Apr-92

24-Apr-92

27-Apr-92

Ol-Jun-92

(BJun-92

05-Jun-92

08-Jun-92

10Jun-92

12-Jun-92

42<d>

NA

258<d>

NA

NA

129/129/16l(1»b>

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

337

373

320

705(d>

464/4630')

459

386

374

421

NA

373

377

308

418

376

357

323

315

334/334/34200

NA

353

333

242

345

329

384

185

150

159

NA

333

329

234

310

314

302

146

126

140

Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD, mg/L)

Total Organic Carbon (TOC, mg/L)(e)

13-Apr-92

24-Apr-92

27-Apr-92

03-Jun-92

05Jvm-92

12-Jun-92

2

NA

3

10/23/43(''b)

NA

NA

NA

15

NA

NA

48

16

NA

13

NA

NA

16

8

NA

5

NA

NA

44

8

NA

3

NA

NA

45

4

13-Apr-92

24-Apr-92

27-Apr-92

Q3-Jun-92

05-Jun-92

12-Jun-92

134

NA

125

55C-b>

NA

NA

NA

138

NA

NA

168

158

NA

138

NA

NA

120

127

NA

128

NA

NA

132

57

NA

122

NA

NA

107

54

B C:\WP51MOB27337\TREATABI\TABLE5-7.TS 8/5/92 10:18 1 5_23 n p Q O } 7 I O

TABLE 5-7 (cont'd.)SUMMARY OF OPERATING DATA FOR THE AS STUDYDRAKE CHEMICAL SITEPAGE 2

MLVSS/MLSS (mg/L)

Feaac*

VSS/TSS, (mg/L)

B C:\WP51\IOB27337\TREATABI\TABLES-7.TS 8/5/92 10:18 2 5-24

Date InfluentEffluent

Reactor 1 Reactor 2 ReactorS Reactor 4

24-M»r-92

10-Apr-92

13-Apr-92

22-Apr-92

24-Apr-92

29-May-92

12Jun-92

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

290/588

25X5/856

1,540/2,660

220/280

690/1,050

1,420/3,270

208/344210/400<c>

290/588

2967856

1,540/2,660

118/216

340/560

920/1,340

400/720480/910<c>

290/588

2967856

1440/2,660

35/45

220/380

1320/1,960

460/760

290/588

2967856

1,540/2,660

30/39

2/11

1,060/1,260

60/128

13-Apr-92

24-Apr-92

27-Apr-92

Q3-Jun-92

05-Jun-92

12-Jun-92

21,000

NA

16,000

7000W

NA

NA

NA

NA

15,000

NA

18,000

19,000

NA

NA

17,000

NA

19,000

20,000

NA

NA

18,000

NA

12,000

8,000

NA

NA

17,000

NA

11,000

7,000

22-Apr-92

24-Apr-92

27-Apr-92

OWun-92

03Jun-92

OSJun-92

08Jim-92

10Jun-92

12Jun-92

NA

1/1

NA

NA

3/8«

NA

NA

NA

NA

128/432

56/92

36/84

760/1060

180/270

222/368

54/88

76/112

76/128

272/560

56/104

40/84

153/240

320/510

22/44

14/27

22/32

80/176

54/60

2/18

4/14

28/48

26/44

76/112

32/42

36/50

32/56

26/52

1/3

4/20

38/66

80/116

42/64

18/31

6/24

40/64

TABLE 5-7 (cont'd.)OF OPERATING DATA FOR THE AS STUDY

CHEMICAL SITEPAGE 3

Date InfluentEffluent

Reactor 1 Reactor 2 Reactor3 Reactor 4

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, (mg/L)

13-Apr-92

24-Apr-92

27-Apr-92

03Jun-92

05-Jun-92

12-Jun-92

190

NA

190

83/83/92(t>b)

NA

NA

NA

186

NA

NA

141

147

NA

177

NA

NA

130

155

NA

175

NA

NA

108

85

NA

159

NA

NA

101

92

Ammonia Nitrogen, (NH3-N, mg/L)

Nitrate Nitrogen, (NO3-N, mg/L)

Orthophosphate-P, (o-P, mg/L)

B C\WPS1\JOB27337\TREATABI\TABLE5-7.TS 8/S/92 10:18 3

13-Apr-92

24-Apr-92

27-Apr-92

03-Jun-92

05-Jun-92

12Jun-92

183

NA

185

65/70/74.5<»'b)

NA

NA

NA

155

NA

NA

140

1.3(d>

NA

175

NA

NA

110

110

NA

170

NA

NA

98

G25

NA

155

NA

NA

95 .

65

13-Apr-92

24-Apr-92

27-Apr-92

03-Jun-92

05Jun-92

12-Jun-92

100<d)

NA

0.12

L26/1.24/1.25<t*>

NA

NA

NA

25.9

NA

NA

12.6

1.58

NA

14.9

NA

NA

7.85

0.66

NA

0.15

NA

NA

4.41

0.53

NA

0.12

NA

NA

4.49

0.74

13-Apr-92

24-Apr-92

27-Apr-92

0.03

NA

0.04

NA

0.26

NA

NA

0.22

NA

NA

0.24

NA

NA

0.07

NA

TABLE 5-7 (cont'd.)SUMMARY OF OPERATING DATA FOR THE AS STUDYDRAKE CHEMICAL SITEPAGE 4

Notes: The dates shown correspond with the operating condition and not necessarily the sampling date. The reactorswere started up again on May 29th after adding the unacdimated Back River sludge to the reactors. OnJune 12th, BOD5 of the composite mixed liquor from all four reactor* were measured at 396 mg/L.

(a) Starting June 3,1992, Reactors 3 and 4 received approximately 30% Drake groundwater.(b) Field duplicate or triplicate.(c) Field duplicate samples for the June 12th samples.(d) These analytical results are rejected.(e) The TOC numbers presented are averages from four runs.NA Not Analyzed

B C\WP5I\IOB27337<rREATABI\TABLES-7.TS 8/5/92 10:18 4 5-26 E D Q H I 71 C

around 440 mg/L. Because of the wide spread in the COD results, COD data were not used in thector performance evaluation.

The BOD5 results presented in Table 5-7 indicate that the effluent BOD5 concentration is generallyhigher than the influent BOD5 concentration. The effluent BOD5 results are obscured by thepresence of washed out sludge which would increase the BOD5 concentration because of theincreased number of BOD5 seed sludge.

As shown in Table 5-7, the TOC analysis appears to be more reliable than the COD analysisalthough the former is quite limited in number. At full strength Drake groundwater, the effluentTOC concentration is almost the same as the influent TOC concentration for all four reactors.There appears to be no biodegradation of oxygen-demanding organic compounds in the groundwater.Even after the diluted groundwater was charged to the reactors, no sign of recovery was observed.

The mixed liquor solids concentrations in all four reactors declined during the study. The bench-scale reactors are inherently inefficient in settling and returning the sludge to the aeration basin.

s problem was further aggravated by the inhibited sludge that did not settle well and washed outf the clarifier. The mixed liquor solids concentrations presented in Table 5-7 are not representativeof the true solids concentration because the solids level never reached a steady-state concentrationdue to the solids washout and the reseeding effort. The addition of exogenous sludge only increasedthe solids concentration temporarily. The solids level in the reactor continued to decline even afterthe sludge addition.

The influent and effluent Fenac* concentrations are presented in Table 5-7. The AS systems didnot degrade Fenac* as expected based on TOC results.

In Table 5-8, the Reactor 1 influent and effluent characteristics are compared. The influent ischaracterized by the pretreated groundwater sample collected during the April 1992 field work. TheReactor 1 effluent was scanned for key biological parameters and organic contaminants followingthe completion of the AS study. The comparison of the data presented in Table 5-8 confirms thatthe AS treatment was not effective in treating the Drake groundwater and the removal of volatilend semivolatile compounds can be attributed to the stripping effect during the aeration.

B G\WP5I\IOB27337\TREATABIVCHAPS.TS 8/5/922:44 27 5-27 HR3QU7U6

TABLE 5-8

COMPARISON OF THE REACTOR 1 INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

Parameter

TOCCODBOD5TKN-NNH3-NNO3-N

Reactor 1Influent*8)(mg/L)

134.342<c>2190183

ioo(c)

Reactor 1Effluent*6)(mg/L)

157.542116147

13«1.58

DetectionLimit<d)(mg/L)

0.51110.10.1

PCBs and Pesticides

Notes

Fenac«(d)4,4'-DDT

21.00.00046

19.0

ND

1.00.0001

VOCs1,2-DichloroethaneChlorobenzene

0.1300.440

NDND

0.1/0.030.1/0.03

BNAs2,4-Dichlorophenol2-ChlorophenolPhenolbis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate

0.1500.0120.017ND

0.011

ND

ND0.051

0.0100.0100.0100.010

>: (a) The Reactor 1 influent is characterized by the pretreated groundwater sampletaken during the April 1992 field work.

(b) The Reactor 1 effluent is characterized by the sample taken after the AS study.(c) These analytical results are rejected.(d) The first detection limits correspond to the Reactor 1 influent. The second

detection limits correspond to the Reactor 1 effluent.ND Not DetectedNA Not Analyzed

B CAWPS1\IOB27337\TREATABI\TABLES-8.TS 8/5/92

^ 01]

Soon after the reactor start-up, the microorganisms were severely inactivated by unusually high levelscontaminant concentrations in the groundwater. Because of the unexpectedly high COD

concentration, the reactors were overloaded in respect to F/M ratio as well as toxics. The toxicinhibition quickly deteriorated the sludge settleability, and solids washout was observed. The lossof sludge and the lack of solids yield further aggravated the deteriorating condition of the AS system.Following the acute toxicity testing, unacclimated Back River sludge was added to all four reactors.However, the AS systems did not recover from their deteriorating state despite some promisingresults from the acute toxicity test The analysis of the reactor operation data indicates that the ASsystems were overloaded with toxics and failed to recover from the inhibition.

Following the reactor shutdown, all of the reactor contents were combined in one reactor. Then,the reactor was fed with the diluted feed (approximately 30 percent Drake groundwater) forthree weeks. After three weeks of feeding, an effluent sample was collected and analyzed for TOCand VOCs. The sample was filtered through a qualitative filter paper and a 0.45- m filtermembrane before the analysis. The TOC concentration in the sample which was passed through thequalitative filter paper was 63.4 mg/L. The soluble TOC concentration in the sample which passed

ough the membrane filter was 55.2 mg/L, which was identical with the reactor influentincentration. No VOCs were detected in the effluent. The TOC results confirmed that the

microorganisms were not able to metabolize the organic compounds in the Drake groundwater.

Fate of Volatile Organic Compounds

The analysis of VOCs in the offgas generated during aeration identified chlorobenzene as acompound of potential concern. The concentrations of chlorobenzene in the reactor influent andeffluent, and in the offgas are presented in Table 5-9. Increasing levels of chlorobenzene in theoffgas were observed with increasing feed rates. Reactor 1, which had the lowest feed rate amongthe four reactors, showed a much lower concentration of chlorobenzene in the offgas than the otherthree reactors. The mass of chlorobenzene around the reactor system boundary did not balance.The amount of chlorobenzene in the offgas exceeded the amount of chlorobenzene that actuallyentered the reactor. Because of the many uncertainties involved with sampling and analyzing agaseous sample, the offgas measurements may not be accurate enough to complete a mass balancearound the reactor system boundary. Assuming that no biooxidation or sorption took place, thelorobenzene in the offgas emitted from Reactor 1 was estimated as the difference between the

influent and the effluent chlorobenzene loading. Because no VOCs were detected in the Reactor 1

B G\WP51\JOT27337VTREATABIVCHAPS.TS 8/5/92 2:44 29 5-29

JS

85 pH CO

s S ^j N a3 2 3s 1 £

J5 SH

53 °

** en'"sf -I5 1l3l>*< ^ ^

8%Silo5l

S g-EC .s •—M •'j 3grt 03 " >e9 1>-i i-4 o

g "e1112 ,3 2% K < o

g ||E|H^ CNW-I

Effluent

Concentration

fog/L)

§^algjg>£ 3O o sS,M6

c-LS? 2 ?3 ^53 qi 2*£ I'55o«C3<0ci

1m«0T-3

t-H(S«0O

oen"ITH

Ro

toT-4

§• r

i— i

g

tr-«

o

oen«a<— i

"iTH

g

T-lr-l

§• r

ts

g

ooo

iR

OTJ-»— 1

oen"Ii-T

V}en

*SsT-l

«o«-<

1

en

g

i— iTJ-«n

*3"jSc4

oen«aT-I

*-<vd

*«oen

|

Tf

«c

1

iB.22S10o4>ON0>^S01<u51as!JS*jii"30S09

g1

1 -eo •g'g a-^ as*l.lflo «g Q <O<D Ofl •*-» *J *J

^^^^^

S 118» •g««

s§

5-30

effluent, all of the chlorobenzene in the influent is likely to have been released to the atmosphereluring the aeration.

5.5 COMPARISON TO TEST OBJECTIVES

The test objectives are stated in Section 5.1 of this chapter. The comparison to each test objectiveis stated below in the same order in which it appears in that section.

• The biodegradation potential test results indicate AS seeds from the Back RiverWWTP and the DuPont Chamber Works PACT® Plant were better acclimated tothe Drake groundwater than the seed from the Kalamazoo Plant under the sameacclimation condition.

• The Drake groundwater was pretreated using fine bubble diffusers to remove99.9 percent of the iron.

• The value of organic parameters such as TOC, COD, and BOD5, and nitrogencompounds for the reactor influent increased substantially compared to thepreviously observed values. The target organic contaminants are Fenac®,chlorobenzene, and ammonia based on the NPDES permit limits for the City of LockHaven WWTP and Ordinance 318 of the City of Lock Haven, Pennsylvania.

• Kinetic coefficients were not developed because the AS systems failed to removeoxygen-demanding organic contaminants.

• The sludge did not settle well after being exposed to the Drake groundwater. Severesolids loss did not allow quantitative analysis of sludge-settling characteristics.

• Design and operational parameters were not developed because the AS systemsfailed to remove oxygen-demanding organic contaminants.

• All of the chlorobenzene in the influent appears to have been released to theatmosphere during the aeration.

B CAWPS1VOB27337\TREATABIVCHAPS.TS 8/S/92 2:44 31 5-31

AR30i*75Q

flR30t*751

6.0 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON

6.1 OBJECTIVES

The purpose of conducting the GAC experiments was to compare GAG column performance inremoving volatile and refractory organics to BAG column performance. The specific objectives ofthe GAC experiments were as follows:

• Establish adsorption isotherms for the three commercially available activated carbons; ;

(React-A and Ffltrasorb-400 from Calgon, and HD-3000 from American Norit).

• Select an appropriate activated carbon.

• Evaluate design parameters (bed size, flow rate, and running time) for GAC columnoperation.

• Investigate the breakthrough characteristics of GAC column operation.

6.2 . EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND PROCEDURES

The GAC experiments consisted of isotherm analysis and column operation. The adsorptionisotherm is used to select an appropriate activated carbon and evaluate the design parameters forthe GAC column operation. In the column operation, the effluent concentration history describesthe breakthrough characteristics. All of the GAC experiments were conducted at the GF treatabilitylaboratory in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania from April to June 1991. All of the required equipment,materials, and supplies for the experiments are listed in Appendix C.

Carbon Preparation

The procedures for preparing activated carbons for the isotherm analysis were as follows:

1. Grind GAC with a mortar and pestle.2. Sieve the ground GAC through a 200-mesh screen.3. Rinse the sieved GAC with high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) water.

D D:\WPS1\IOB27337\TREATABI\CHAP6.TS 7A7/92 fc53 1 6-1&R30U752

4. Dry in a 105°C oven to constant weight (less than ±0.1% Relative PercentDifference).

5. Store in a desiccator.

The procedures for preparing carbon for the column operation were similar to those for the isothermanalysis except that GAC was directly sieved between 20- and 40-mesh screens in the second stepwithout going through the first step.

Groundwater Pretreatment

Groundwater was pretreated in bench scale at the GF treatability laboratory on April 1991 for theisotherm analysis using the following procedures:

1. Pour 18 liters of groundwater each into two five-gallon buckets.

2. Immerse two stirrers in each bucket and add 90 ml of 0.1 M ferric chloride.

3. Rapidly stir at 203 rpm for one minute, then slowly stir at 30 rpm for 20 minutes,and allow to settle undisturbed for one hour.

4. Scoop out the upper supernatant and decant the lower portion.

5. Store the supernatant in two five-gallon cubitainers and neutralize the supernatantpH to 6.0 using 1.0 N sodium hydroxide.

6. Vacuum filter the pH neutralized supernatant using a 100-ml sand filter.

The groundwater was pretreated at the Drake Chemical Site (pilot scale) in order to obtain influentwater for the GAC column test The experimental design and procedures for the pilot study havebeen described in Section 32 of this report In the first column experiment, the pretreatedsupernatant was used as the influent without pH adjustment In the second experiment, thesupernatant was pH adjusted to about 8 using 140 ml of 1.0 N sodium hydroxide for five gallons ofpretreated groundwater, and was left undisturbed overnight so that metal hydroxides (chiefly ferrichydroxide) could settle. Following the hydroxide precipitation, the supernatant was used as the

D D:\WF5WCS27337\TREATABI£HAP6.TS 7/17/92 fc53 2 > 6-2

AR3QI4753

influent for the second experiment. Because the GAC process was mainly used to remove organics,pretreatment requirements for the inorganics have to satisfy the City of Lock Haven's NPDESpermit and City Ordinance No. 318.

Isotherm Analysis

The following procedures for isotherm analysis were used:

1. Add varying dosages of three carbons to 30 four-liter plastic bottles (Table 6-1).

2. Add pretreated groundwater to each bottle, or pretreated groundwater and deionized(DI) water (Table 6-1).

i

3. Place bottles in a rotary agitation apparatus for each run and agitate at 30 rpm forat least seven hours.

4. Vacuum filter the samples and analyze the filtrates as described in Section 6.3.

In Table 6-1, the amounts of carbon added are distributed in a logarithmic scale. The four-liter totalsolutions shown in the table are for field duplicates, USAGE QA, or GF Environmental Laboratorychecks in addition to the regular sampling.

Column Experiments

Different sizes of carbon beds and various flow rates and running times were used for the twocolumn experiments (Table 6-2). The configurations for Experiments 1 and 2 are shown inFigures 6-1 and 6-2, respectively. In the first experiment, a five-gallon cubitainer was used as theinfluent container and a peristaltic pump with a speed controller was used to maintain the flow rate.The pretreated groundwater was directed down through a sand filter and then up through the GACcolumn without disturbing the bed. Samples were collected at the effluent of the GAC bed througha preset auto sampler. Because the second experiment had an increased bed size, the cubitainer andperistaltic pump were elevated to a higher position to diminish the pumping burden. The amountf DI water standing on top of the bed was discarded before the initiation of sampling for bothcolumn experiments. The potential deleterious effects of the GAC column test are air bubbles and

D D:\WP51\JOB27337\TREATABRCHAPfi.TS 7/17/K 9S3 3 6-3 SR3QI4751*

TABLE 6-1

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN FOR ISOTHERM ANALYSIS

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

Bottle No.

1234

5<*>6<c>78910

, 1112

13 )

1415<*>16<c>17<d)18

192021

22 )2324

25<d>

Carbon Type

React-AReact-ARcact-AReact-AReact-AReact-A

React-AReact-A

React-AReact-A

Filtrasorb-400Ffltrasorb-400Ffltrasorb-400Filtrasorb-400Filtrasorb-400Filtrasorb-400Filtrasorb-400Ffltrasorb-400Filtrasorb-400Filtrasorb-400HD-3000HD-3000HD-3000HD-3000HD-3000

Carbon Added(g).1247

3033.9734

2.9932

.0475

.1592

.2550

.7891

.0296

.1771

.0964

.28051.05072.9252.0602.1491.4946.7672.0096.0299.0978.3074.9916

2.9901.0566

Groundwater(L)222222112

22

22

222212222222

Deionized Water(L)0000

22

11

00

0

00

022210000002

C &\WP5WOB27337\TRBATABKraL6-I.TS 7/17/92 11:17 1 6-4

flR30l*755

•iTABLE 6-1 (cont'd.)' XPER1MENTAL DESIGN FOR ISOTHERM ANALYSISRAKE CHEMICAL SITEPAGE 2

Bottle No.

2627282930

Carbon Type

HD-3000HD-3000HD-3000HD-3000HD-3000

Carbon Added(g).0740.2651.7848.1791.03

Groundwater<L)

1

1

1

22

Deionized Water(L)

1

11

0

0

Notes: (a) Samples taken for field duplicate QC analyses(b) Samples taken for rinsate blank QC analyses(c) Samples taken for USAGE QA analyses(d) Samples taken for GFEL QC check

C R\WP5MOB27337\TREATABlVrBLS-l.T5 mi/9211:17 2 6-5 flR^OUTSfi

TABLE 6-2

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN FOR GAC COLUMN OPERATION

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

Design ParameterBedLD. (cm)

Column length (cm)Bed length (cm)Sand depth (cm)Carbon weight (g)Flow rate (raL/rain)Running time (day)

Experiment 1

1.5206.710

4.9981102.40

Experiment 2

560 *"4.254141.55

11.97

C R\WP5WCB27337\TRBATABATBLS-2.TS 7/17/K 11:19 1 6-6 _

-

1

<5

i11Si(

(Pretr

eal

h-W

<IsCO •=t/5 u.

O

OS,O

OO

OO

it "5.

£ IO) I

i "5. II I i^ <0 riO CO 5o s——————*— I

, 1

CO

T3s §.E oS £IE — .3 5?O ®S220.

LLI

EO.

O h-< w«4cc <o o "~ c <3

(0 ~CO U-cc z 23

D O x2 j= o<CCO tO _i ;2 co•3 to

OO ^

£c o. fi«-> i E §

< .= (D Soo to I

6-8

leaking; those effects can be diminished by minimizing the use of valves and by tightening all of theconnections.

6.3 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS

The sampling and analysis plan for the GAC column test is broken down into the isotherm analysisand the two column experiments, as shown in Table 6-3. In the isotherm analysis, 32 samples werecollected for TOC and Fenac9 analyses. Thirty of these samples were the filtrate from the30 bottles with carbon added, and two were the pretreated groundwater without carbon. Table 6-1indicates the samples for QA/QC analyses. Bottles 5,6,13, and 21 were monitored for temperature.In the column experiments, both influent and effluent samples were monitored and analyzed. Theeffluent samples were collected at regular intervals during the operation. The analytical parameterswere TOC, Fenac®, COD, chlorobenzene, toluene, metals, cyanide, VOCs, BNAs, and pesticides/PCBs in addition to the monitoring parameters of pH, DO, and temperature (Table 6-3). InExperiment 1, the monitoring parameters were measured for both the influent and the last effluent.In Experiment 2, one DO, one temperature, and six pH measurements were taken for the influent,

id two measurements for each of these parameters were taken for the effluent. No effluent wascollected for pesticade/PCB analysis because influent concentrations for this analysis were below thedetection limits. QC and QA samples were not necessary in the second experiment becausesufficient samples were collected in the first one.

>-••

6.4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

6.4.1 Isotherm Analysis

Table 64 shows the results for the isotherm analysis. In the table, TOC values are reported as thearithmetic average of four analytical results. Bottles 9,10,19, 20, 29, 30, and 32 used the samebatch of pretreated groundwater, the remaining bottles used another batch.

In this isotherm analysis, results are used to establish the adsorption isotherm on which the selectionof GAC and the evaluation of column operating parameters are based. Figures 6-3 to 6-8 show theexperimental results and the Freundlich isotherms (Freundlich, 1906), which are established frome linear regression of the experimental data assessed with the three activated carbons for TOC and

Fenac*. The Freundlich isotherm can be expressed as follows:

D D:\WPSWCffl27337\TREATABIVCHAPS.TS 7fl7/K 953 9 6-9

<

<

•1II

r<

•

«

4

j

4rf

1

.*3

1

R

i

•o§

1sI

c

<<

PO

0

^c

V

c

1i

>i0

S

§

eD

ai

5

§

eo&33n

os

1i?

-

-

rt

o

-N

c.

p>

I

o

i-

0

TH

o

C4

O

o

o

o

§

ooo

i1«

O

o

o

-N

c.

m

1

g§5?00

1

-

-

0

o

c»

o

o

o

o

1 Chloroben.

o00

11-

-

o

O

O

O

o

o

Toluene

£

-

0

o

o

o

"o

o

o

•o•a1

i1-

o

o

o

o

o

o

0

•81

3OO

11»

0

o

o

o

o

o

0

1

oOOii'

o

o

e

o

o

0

o

o

1

§So

11-o

0

o

o

o

o

o

o

8

Pestidde/P

.af§

K

«

t-

0

o

o

o

0

0

o

5.

aI

»

*«•

0

o

o

o

o

o

o

§

§

1

a

o

o

o

o

T-l

r-l

**•

£

H

(

1 (1 *1o

5

1&t i« {2« «•>•° 3M Kp3 S| |

1s I1±i tojj *!5 . • o

6"10

GO

3 d* 3I? I

•t

£Ie

2

ISid

s

2a"

t--Ot

I

f

E

i

o

E

o

I

s<y

TH

B

IH

1

6-11 flR30l*762

31

i1oOJ1—4

gg

2H

-

£E§

f3;§lrO- <-4

s* 23\e *

|j>

M 2 W <**3 w§g w9 &^9g|§2

a

!

21l£

I!

II

la

1

Ia|

|g•P3

,e?|

oI

!

«•o

ts

i

Q

1

*E

a

!

*•o

«

ioI

i

a

•§o

-

i

i1

^

i

8

tH

0

«

i

§

s

1

•2

o

«

1

ig

i

•a

o

-

§

§g

i

•e>\

«

1

1

g

i

i

3

TH

I

1

g

1

'

'

-

tH

H

ig

^

1

g

to

-

1

§

g

1

1

ao

•PJ

g

1g

!-

iP

o

-

s

ig

1

'Ot

o

-

o

1

_

1f

1

'a$

o

-

0

*J*1

!

<

itPi!

•rt Wsfl 15* i3% §*O t> CG ® l~J

•§.« pB ° B

ii i<ws>*-s. W

Nw' S' »3.H

s i1 ^Z . i u

6-128R3014763

£^ I \ \ 0

H

accCC Mlo h-U. ;••g O)

CO CC <« i 2UJ i- 5--c ig

UJo

Z)UJccu.oo

1 I » » I i I I I I t i I I

oo

• • • " " • " • " ! • " " "I ~^C M C M C M C M C M C M ^ r -r-

[(6ui/6n) b] 6o|

6-13 AR30»*76U

V)

0)Q.XLU

O>

OO HO)o

CD•

Oo

TJ

IU_

CM•

O

I

2.a.

OC O) LU

2*5LU

CDO g^

o' x i.o- • coo

I I » « « •

CM CM CM C>i CM" CM CM* ^ J ^ J ^

[(6uj/6n) b] 6o|

6-15

Dtn£

0)Q.XUJ

os ^o c1U.

ID<6.5

I

in

0)Q.XLU

CD

O I CO

111CCCC illO J-"- co

to co <<6 5 £2uj < 2§ rf I \ o> hig 2 ° \ + " CM" o)

liCO **8«'

10 «

CO §(00)cc+J0)

o E

J2JCo

CM §0)

COCM g

13(D

I[(6uu/6n) b] 6o| |

I

6~16

• r

0o

SORB-4

f

CCJjIECC

(O o>£ 55c < _;Pi*<

ocUJXQ

C/)

©3<UJu.

m

UJtjO2UJXoJJjj20

-

._.,*

-

_

•-

-

_

—

B

—

+

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

LOCO

COCO

'r-

co

0>oi

oi

oi

coCM*

^ CO 1 5 h CO ^ T ^ O CO ^ CO \£} ^ CO C ^ CO O)3* y * J ''5 "5j ***r ^ * CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO >*J * ^• • • • • • * T ™ 1 • • • • * • • • * ^ ^ •f" " ™ r" ~ " r~ t~ • r~ T~ T™ r-" T™- r~ r1"

f(6uj/6n) bl 601

(0•5COoCC

0)

•c0)CLXUJ

+

3.0O)™~

EV.o£o_w_gT3c1u.1

1Is<Ma%i

9R3014768

ooo

o |S

II< Z2oin=Ct_o

U4U.

CM

®0

CDCO

eoJM

* 5co a€

CM OCO .|

o&

COCM ^

3CD >3

O

CM """

6-18flR30I*769

CM JOJIu

» 1*" Iu_CD

5•o

[(6tu/6n) b] 6o| aXI.2,

q = K C^ (6-1)

where: C = concentration in solution; TOC (mg/L); Fenac* (fig/L)q = adsorption capacity determined as concentration in solid;

TOC 0/g/mg); Fenac* 0/g/mg)K and 1/n = Freundlich isotherm coefficients

The adsorption equilibrium also can be expressed in Langmuir isotherm (Langmuir, 1916) as follows:

(6-2)be

where: C and q as in Equation 6-1Q = ultimate uptake capacity of adsorbent (mg/g)b = Langmuir energy term; TOC (L/mg); Fenac* (L//ig)

The Freundlich isotherm coefficients (K and 1/n) and the Langmuir isotherm coefficients (Q and b)for the respective adsorbent and adsorbate are summarized in Table 6-5. The adsorption capacitycan then be calculated from either Equation 6-1 or 6-2 and Table 6-5. The calculated adsorptioncapacities for the two batches in the isotherm analysis are listed in Table 6-6. As shown in the table,Filtrasorb-400 is more effective than the other two carbons in TOC adsorption. However, nosignificant difference is observed between Filtrasorb-400 and React-A in Fenac* adsorption. SinceReact-A is still used by American Color and Chemical (ACC) for carbon adsorbers, it was selectedin the GAC and BAC column operations. The second choice was HD-3000 from American Norit.

6.4.2 Column Experiments

Tables 6-7 to 6-10 show the results for Experiments 1 and 2. The reported effluent sampling timesfell in the middle of the sampling duration. Since TOC and Fenac* in the effluent were analyzedmore frequently, they were separated from the other analytical parameters and are tabulated in'ables 6-7 and 6-9 (TOC values are reported as the arithmetic average of four analytical results).

D D:VWP5WOB27S37\TRBATABI\CHAP<.TS 7A7/92 *S3 19 6-19 ftR30l*770

TABLE 6-5

EQUILIBRIUM PARAMETERS IN THE ISOTHERM ANALYSIS

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

A. Freundich Isotherm

Carbon Type

React-AFiltrasorb-400HD-3000

TOCK

14.0016.9817.46

1/n

0.8711.0860.768

Fenac*K

8.6325.595.55

1/h •

0.1070.0000.109

B. Langmuir Isotherm

Carbon Type

React-AFiltrasorb-400

HD-3000

TOC

Q(mg/g)

737.46

108.05

151.75

b(L/mg)

0.0160.3910.114

Fenac*

Q(mg/g)

17.7623.6411.64

b(L///g)0.011-0.0490.049

C EWP51VOB27337\TREATABKTBL6-5.TS 1V4/9112.-04 1 6-20

flR3Ql*77i

TABLE 6-6

ADSORPTION CAPACITY FOR TOC AND FENAC® FOR THE ISOTHERM ANALYSIS

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

Carbon Type

React-AHItrasorb-400

HD-3000

Pretreated Groundwater Batch l<a)TOC (pg/mg)

238.29581.8121255

Fenac* (/ig/mg)

18.5925.5912.13

Pretreated Groundwater Batch 2TOC (/ig/mg)

318.60835.69274.58

Feoac* (//g/mg)

21.0725.5913.78

Notes: (a) The TOC and Fenac* concentrations hi Batch 1 were 25.9 mg/L and 1,300 pg/L,respectively.

(b) The TOC and Fenac* concentrations in Batch 2 were 36.15 mg/L and4,200 pg/L, respectively.

C E:\WP51\K»2733ATREATABATBLfr6.TS 11/1/9112:41 1 6-21

TABLE 6-7

GAC COLUMN EXPERIMENT 1 FOR CRITICAL PARAMETERS

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

EffluentTime(hour)

33883817.5021.6726.0834.0843.7747.8352.88

TOC(mg/L)

14.1822.1823.9525.4325.80

25.4325.1026.6326.78

Time(hour)

2.507.56163222.7526.83

34.7942.9547.0851.87

Fenac*0<g/L)

2701500220027002900

2900300024003000

Note: The influent TOC and Fenac* levels are 3135 mg/L and 3000 pg/L, respectively.

C E:\WP51\JCffl27337VTRBATABl\TBLS-7.TS 7/17/921121 1 6-22 » D O O I ~1 T OAnou4//3

TABLE 6-8

GAC COLUMN EXPERIMENT 1 FOR OTHER PARAMETERS

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

AnalyticalParameter

COD (pgfL)

Chlorobenzene (|ig/L)

Toluene (/ig/L)

Influent*1)

111

530

ND

EfQuent

Time- 12.02 hr

—

ND

ND

Time- 19.42 hr

80

—

—

Time« 25.06 hr

_

ND

ND

Time= 37.36 hr

—

ND

ND

Time- 44.42 hr

76

—

—

Time« 44.87 hr

. —

ND .

ND

VOC, BNA, and PCB/Pestkades (fig/L)\1,2-Dichloroethane

Methyleoe Chloride

Trichloroethane

2,4-DichIorophenol

_kis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate

^ hloro-2-Methylanfline

110

ND

10

21

ND

45

29

9.2

ND

ND

130

ND

—

—

—

—

—

—

41

20

ND

—

—

—

36

9.8

ND

ND

81

17

—

—

—

—

—

—

34

ND

ND

— .

—

—

Metals and Cyanide (mg/L)

Aluminum

Calcium

Chromium

Cobalt

Iron

Lead

Magnesium

Manganese

Nickel

Potassium

Silver

Sodium

Zinc

Cyanide

0.1

165

0.015

0.060

184

0.009

105

153

ND

41.9

0.02

395

0.17

0.013

ND

170

0.008

0.06

69.3

ND

104

15.3

ND

41.5

ND

496

0.13

0.02

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

. — ,

—

—

—

—

_

—

—

—

—

_

—

—

—

ND

142

0.009

0.063

313

ND

100

15.0

0.06

403

ND

522

0.05

0.024

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

_

. —

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

. —

_

—

—

_

Note: (a) The influent value* are from the analytical results of the pilot-scale pretreated groundwater.

C E:\WPSl\IOB27337\TRBATABiaBUS-8.TS 7/17/921122 1 6-23 fiRlflU77li

TABLE 6-8 (cont'd)GAC COLUMN EXPERIMENT 1 FOR OTHER PARAMETERSDRAKE CHEMICAL SITEPAGE 2

MonitoringParameter

Temperature (*C)

DO (mg/L)

pH

Influent

22.7

7.2

5.00

Effluent at Time « 57.00 hr

22.6

'7.0

5.07

C E:\WPSI\IOB2733ATRBATABIOTLfr«.TS 7/17/92 1122 2 6-24

AR3CH775

TABLE 6-9

GAL COLUMN EXPERIMENT 2 FOR CRITICAL PARAMETERS

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

Effluent

Time (day)0.971.802.192.823343.844.09434

h 4 . 8 55325396356.897398.018.641037

TOC(mg/L)

4.953552302.805.434.28753105012.0311.8514.4315.2813.6816.151138125012.13

Time (day)

1.051.822.442.973.473.974.224.474.725.095.476.156567267.898511037

Fenac® (/ig/L)

3.73.91822274646

49

52

55

100

120

150

240

280320

370

Note: The influent TOC and Fenac* levels are 2625 mg/L and 2800 pg/L, respectively.

C E:\WP51\IOB27337\TREATABATBL6-9.TS 7/17/92 1123 1 6-25

TABLE 6-10

GAG COLUMN EXPERIMENT 2 FOR OTHER PARAMETERS

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

AnalyticalParameter

COD<«>(mg/L)Chtorobenzene (//g/L)Toluene (//g/L)

Influent

111NDND

EffluentTime

= 2.99 day

10ND1.6

Time= 5.08 day

10ND2.0

Time= 7.06 day

20ND1.7

Time= 8.81 day

25ND1.1

AnalyticalParameter Influent

VOC and BNA (ftg/L)1,2-DichloroethaneMethylene Chloride

217.5

Effluent at Time= 10.54 day

ND5.1

Metals and Cyanide (mg/L)

C E:\WP5WOB27337\TREATABKIBL6-10.TS 7/17/92 11:18 1 6-26

CalciumChromiumIronLeadMagnesiumManganesePotassiumSilverSodiumZincCyanide

1380.0068.6ND1036.545.60.015920.010.021

1480.009ND0.0091035.143.4ND

588ND0.028

TABLE 6-10 (Cont'd)GAC COLUMN EXPERIMENT 2 FOR OTHER PARAMETERSRAKE CHEMICAL SITEPAGE 2

MonitoringParameter

Temperature (°C)PHDO(mg/L)

Influent )

23/237.79/7J7/7.W3/7.96

7.8/6.8

EffluentTime = 6.05 day

22.77.477.1

Time * 11.97 day237.807.5

Notes: (a) The influent COD value is from the analytical result of the pilot-scale pretreatedgroundwater.

(b) The influent monitoring parameters are reported on sample and duplicate results.

C E:\WP51\IOB2733ATREATABIVIBIJ6-10.TS 7/17/9211:18 2 6-27 flR30^778

The monitoring and other analytical parameters are tabulated in Tables 6-8 and 6-10. Flow rateswere continuously monitored and no head loss was observed during the entire column operation.

The idealistjcalry calculated adsorption capacities for the column experiments are listed inTable 6-11. The idealistic 50 percent concentration breakthrough time for TOC and Fenac® canbe predicted from the calculated adsorption capacity and the design parameters (bed size and flowrate) using the following equation:

50* breakthrough time = (adsorption capacity) (carbon amount) (6_3)(influent concentration) (flow rate)

The idealistically calculated times for 50 percent concentration breakthrough are also listed inTable 6-11.

Experimental results of the column operations are exhibited in Figures 6-9 to 6-12. Figures 6-9 and6-10 show the breakthrough curves for TOC and Fenac9 in Experiment 1, respectively. In the firstexperiment, the 50 percent breakthrough of TOC and Fenac® occurred at three and eight hours,respectively, much earlier than expected. No symmetrical shape is observed for both breakthroughcurves. From the characteristics of these curves, either the empty bed contact time (EBCT) was tooshort, or the flow linear velocity was too high for Column 1. Therefore, the second experiment wasdesigned to increase EBCT and decrease the linear velocity by increasing bed size and decreasingflow rate. In addition, the EBCT of Column 2 is similar to that of ACC's carbon adsorber, as shownin Table 6-11.

Figures 6-11 and 6-12 show the breakthrough curves for TOC and Fenac* in Experiment 2,respectively. As illustrated in Figure 6-11, 50 percent of influent TOC was detected from theeffluent after six days of operation. However, 50 percent of influent Fenac® was not detected after10 days of operation (Figure 6-12). Although a symmetric breakthrough curve for Fenac® was notfully developed in the 10-day column operation, the combination of the curves from bothexperiments shows the breakthrough characteristics for Fenac® and TOC in GAC column operation.Figure 6-11 can be used to calculate carbon usage for the breakthrough concentration of Fenac®higher than 350 //gflL, and Figure 6-12 can be used for the concentration less than 350 //g/L. If thebreakthrough concentration for Fenac* is 1,000 pgfL, every gram of carbon will remove 138 mg of

D D:\WP5WOB27337\TREATABlyCHAP6.TS 7/17/92 ftS3 28 6-28

flR3Qi*779

TABLE 6-11

DESIGN PARAMETERS OF GAG COLUMN EXPERIMENTS AND ACC ADSORBER

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

Calculated and Measured Parameters

React-AAdsorptionCapacity

TOC (mg/mg)

Fenac* (//g/mg)

Column diameter: Static bed depthEBCT (min)Linear velocity (cm/min)Idealistic 50 percentbreakthrough (day)

TOC

Experimental 50 percent TOCbreakthrough

1 Idealistic 50 percent Fenac*breakthroughExperimental 50 percent Fenac9breakthrough

Column l<a>

281.42

20.330.22

1.185.66

3.12 day

3hr

2.35 day

8hr

Column 2<b>

241.90

20.181.1816.690.25

52.91 day

6 day

39 day

>10day

ACCAdsorber*0)

261.77

20250.9616.9221.61

51.04 day

—

39.28 day

— -

Notes: (a) The influent of TOC and Fenac* in Experiment 1 are 3135 mg/L and 3,000 /ig/I,respectively.

(b) The influent of TOC and Fenac* in Experiment 2 are 26.25 mg/L and 2,800 ftg/L,respectively.

(c) The influent of TOC and Fenac* for ACC adsorber are assumed 28.85 mg/L and2,900 j/g/L, respectively

D D:\WP51UC«27337\TREATAB1\TBL6-II.TS 7/lfiW 1232 1 6-29

I-UJ

Ein

2O 7To _J<C <r

(OLLI ccUd Acc Pu.

CO•

COII£<D^H—

so

ooCC1sccCDOO

O

o<o

o.E0)

i n o i n o i o o m oCO CO CN CM t- *-

•

I

r»001 Ii

6-30

f-2LU

£LUQ.XLU

o |S0 5

LU it! LUCC "• X«i

ccCQ©o111u.

O(O

o>

qCOll4->

O

1 ' 10)E

X Q . 1 O

o ' |CS1CCXh"

•o6

10 co iq cs in «- ir>co oi r^ d

8oeue-j -§® 3 I

|i a

6-31 flR3Ql»782

CM inoI-

UJ

EHIQ.XUJZD

UJ

(O

o to wO -J< < <oocUJ 0

CC >3uj o

UI

OtriQCCOOO

_ CMO)

CD0»Jn•M

0)

1

• «

0)o

co oU. I iE

_ •<

Q

0 •o

I

(1/6UJ) oo±

flR30l*783

Fenac (ug/L)

S -* -» fO fO CO CO 4*f t O l O C J l O O l O O l OI o o o o o o o o of t . I I I I I I I

o

»0

Q)< O)

I(D

oaII10COo

Hc(Q

0073m

oCDD n:

5 8m » ~O m cI -n 30rn o mS 30 9O Ci -»

= °m' Om p-

m

m

ro

Fenac*. The carbon usage was calculated through the integration of the breakthrough curve shownin Figure 6-11.

In addition to TOC and Fenac*, other organics (VOCs and BNAs) were adsorbed on GAC for bothcolumn experiments (Tables 6-8 and 6-10). These tables also show that iron was the only inorganicwith an effluent concentration significantly less than the influent concentration, and all threemonitoring parameters (pH, DO, and temperature) did not vary significantly during the operationperiod.

The onsite regeneration of exhausted carbon is not economically feasible unless the used carbon isin terms of million pounds. The offsite regeneration service is provided by the vendor who sells thecarbon. If React-A carbon is used for full-scale operation, the total price for purchasing and offsiteregeneration will be about one dollar per pound.

63 COMPARISON TO TEST OBJECTIVES

The test objectives are stated hi Section 6.1 of this chapter. The following comparison to each testobjective is stated in the same order in which it appears in Section 6.1:^•jr£ • The adsorption isotherm for each test carbon (React-A and Filtrasorb-400 fromt Calgon, and HD-3000 from American Norit) was established for both TOC and

Fenac*. The adsorption relationship for each carbon was theoretically formulatedby the Freundlich isotherm which was used to estimate carbon adsorption capacityfor given breakthrough concentrations.

• React-A was selected as the activated carbon used in both the GAC and BACcolumn tests because it is used in the ACC carbon adsorber. In addition, theadsorption capacity for Fenac*, calculated from the Freundlich isotherm, was notmuch different for each tested carbon.

• Two sets of design parameters including bed size, flow rate, and running time wereevaluated for the GAC column experiments. The operating parameters ofExperiment 1 were designed based on the adsorption isotherm analyses. Because thebreakthrough of TOC and Fenac* occurred much earlier than what was expected,

D D:\WP51UOB27337\TREATABI\CHAP6.TS 7/17/92 *S3 34 6-34 ~. < f. 4 -, - -.flRjUH/85

the operating parameters for Experiment 2 were designed based on the bed geometryand EBCT of the ACC carbon adsorber.

• The combination of the breakthrough curves for the GAC column experiments wasused to describe the breakthrough characteristics of the GAC column operation. Ifthe breakthrough concentration for Fenac* was less than 350 jig/L, the breakthroughcurve for GAC Experiment 2 would be used for the carbon usage calculation.Otherwise, the breakthrough curve for the first experiment was used. The 50 percentbreakthrough for both TOC and Fenac* in Column 1 occurred much earlier thanwhat was calculated based on the adsorption isotherm analyses.

6.6 COMPUTER MODELING

A computer model was established to describe and predict the GAC column performance undervarious operating conditions. The model was developed based on material-balance relationships forthe GAC column. The lumped parameter approach (Keinath, 1976) was used to convert thematerial-balance generated partial differential equation into a set of ordinary differential equations.

Single-Component Model

A simplified single-component model was established assuming only one contaminant exists in thesystem. The adsorption equilibria were described by the Freundlich isotherm, and the kinetics ofinterphase solute transport was described by film diffusion that had a mass transfer coefficient thatwas calculated according to Perry's Chemical Engineer's Handbook (Appendix C),

A computer program describing the single-component model was written in FORTRAN language(Appendix D). In the program, Eider's method was used to numerically integrate the ordinarydifferential equations. Because the single-component model did not accurately predict GAC columnperformance, a multicomponent model was proposed and established.

Multicomponent Model

e multicomponent model is more realistic than the single-component model in describing theGAC system. Theoretical development of the multicomponent model is similar to those of the

D D:\VVP51\JOB27337VniEATABRCHAP6TS 7/17/92 fcSJ 35 6-35 „ ~ rflRv

single-component model except the description of adsorption equilibria. In the multicomponentmodel, the competitive Langmuir equation (Butler, 1930) was used to describe the multicomponentadsorption equilibria. Three groups of contaminants were assumed in the model: Fenac*,contaminants more adsorbable than Fenac*, and contaminants less adsorbable than Fenac*.Because no pure single component isotherm was established experimentally, the respective Langmuirparameter for each component was approached in a "trial-and-error" method by minimizing sumsof square errors resulting from differences between theoretical predictions and experimental resultsfor both TOC and Fenac*. The trial-and-error approach was operated in Lotus 1-2-3. Thealgorithm of the computer program for the multicomponent model is similar to that for the singlecomponent model except a subroutine was incorporated to solve simultaneous algebraic equationsthrough Gaussian elimination (Appendix D.)

Figures 6-13 and 6-14 show the predicted and experiment results for TOC and Fenac, respectively,for Experiment 1; Figures 6-15 and 6-16 show the predicted and experiment results forExperiment 2. As shown in these figures, the multicomponent model is much better than the singlecomponent model in predicting the GAC column performances. The prediction accuracy of themulticomponent model can be improved if more than three components are incorporated in thesystem.

D D:\WP5WOB27337\TOEArABtCHAPCiTS 7/1702 fc53 36 6-36

AR30li787

I i I _i i I j i i i i i i

O O C M C M C N C N C S I t - r - r - r - t -

(l/6ui)QOJ.

T30)oZ

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

6-38

(1/Buj)

6-39 flR30«*790

O O O O O O O O cO O O O O O O . £ Ir- <o in *t- eo CM T- felft-1

LU «n/Bn)

fi-40

7.0 BIOLOGICAL ACTIVATED CARBON

7.1 OBJECTIVES

The BAG treatability study was conducted to meet the following overall objectives:

• Compare treatment performance (through breakthrough characteristics evaluation)of BAG column with GAG column

• Evaluate design parameters for a BAG column

7.2 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND PROCEDURES

Bacteria Culturing

Activated sludge samples were obtained from three established cultures, the Kalamazoo PowderedActivated Carbon Treatment (PACT*) Plant, the Baltimore Back River Wastewater Treatment Plant

?) and the Dupont Chamber Works PACT* Plant. The two PACT® plants were selectedjecause similar microorganisms are expected to biodegrade Drake groundwater. The KalamazooPlant is the largest operational PACT* plant in the world and typically treats approximately60 percent industrial wastewaters, including paper and pharmaceutical industry effluents. The BackRiver Plant typically receives 80 to 85 percent of its wastewater from domestic sources. The DupontChamber Works Plant predominately treats industrial and hazardous wastewaters, including waterfrom Superfund sites, and has been the primary disposal facility for wastewaters generated at theDrake Chemical Site.

The activated sludge seeds were cultured in 15-liter glass tanks over an eight-week period. Initially,40 milliliters of seed was introduced into 12 liters of a five percent solution of Drake groundwaterin well water. Well water from Pennsylvania was used so that no residual chlorine would be present.Over the eight-week period, the concentration of Drake groundwater in the culture was increasedto 10,20,40,60, and 80 percent The cultures were maintained at a temperature of 20 to 22°C, apH between 6.0 and 8.0, and DO greater than 7.0 rag/L. If the pH dropped below 6.0, a 0.1 normalsolution of sodium hydroxide was used to adjust the pH to above 6.0. The cultures were fed twiceweek with 25 milliliters of 8 percent extract beef as nutrient.

D D:\WPSl\IOB27337VrREATABI\CHAP7.TS 7/W/92 MB 1 7-1 SR3014793

Inoculating the Carbon with Bacteria

The activated carbon was inoculated with bacteria at two steps of the study. Initially, 50 millilitersof settled sludge from each of the three cultures was combined with 41.5 grams of Calgon React-Acarbon in a flask. The flask was shaken by hand a few times each day over a 10-day period to mixthe carbon and bacteria and promote growth on the carbon. The inoculated carbon was then packedinto the adsorption column. Twenty-two days after the onset of the experiment when it appearedthat the biological growth was not having an appreciable effect on contaminant uptake,approximately 60 milliliters of settled sludge from Back River andDupont cultures were injected intothe adsorption column in the activated carbon bed.

Column Setup

The adsorption isotherms established in the GAG test were reviewed and used in the BAG test. Theconfiguration of the BAG test system is shown hi Figure 7-1. The type (Calgon React-A) andquantity (41.5 grams) of carbon and operating conditions were the same as those used inExperiment 2 of the GAG studies (Chapter 6). The column was operated in an upflow mode toprevent fine particles from clogging the bed. A post treatment sand filter was used to trap any fineparticles and decayed bacteria.•&

Initially, the columns were saturated with deionized water to remove air bubbles, check for leaks,and adjust the pumping rate. The influent was then switched to Drake groundwater. The pumpingrate was maintained at approximately 5 ml/min throughout the experiment Equipment, materials,and supplies that were needed to perform the BAG study are summarized in Appendix C.

13 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS

The samples for the BAG experimental study were collected hi two phases-one set of samples werecollected during bacteria culturing and the other set during BAG column operation. Table 7-1summarizes the sampling and analysis plan for the BAG study. The TOG samples were run inquadruplets as is required by the standard method.

As discussed earlier, three bacterial cultures from the Kalamazoo PACT plant, the Baltimore BackRiver WWTP, and the Dupont Chamber Works PACT* plant were cultured over an eight-week

D D:\WP51\IOB27337\TRBATABI\CHAP7.TS lfl.61911KB 2 7-2

I

(AUJI-

LDII•

D

_

, 1

»••oto•oi- Cen «_

.£ oCO *-.§ 0jQ

O ®

s2

OOo so °u. inZ SO <= cc

DS2u.2OO

ILU

ccsXUJ

7-3

OC&

W O93 g§ g

t<»1;*4

j

«•i

¥

|

CO

iCO•81

«

ISt\5

i2

Rintato B

lank

|

•o

0w

3

S3

!z

Hs

1g

'

a

„

s

g

11

3

-

C4

•0

«

§

ii

53

o

o

f

iia

o

a

*°

1

ia

o

•0

<0

}

oo

1iOt

0

•0

o

!

VH

1

«

-

m

w

*81

o

1io>

o

•0

o

1 VOAAromatka

s«

o

0

•*

o

| TALMetalt

£s

i&^

o

o

o

1

ci

1&„

o

o

o

1 TCLBNAs

1

&

o,

o

TH

00

o

1&

Ok

o

TH

00

0

,

•*

&

«

o

TH

0

'H

1 MLVSS

1&

a

o

TH

O

to

,

3

Iav>

o

o

0

Total Colifonn

fSg

g

0

o

58

fSi

a

o

o

58

g

S

I

§8

7-4 AR3G<4796

^

• _

XgHUJaHtfoz2NHws M< «»

?figW "*N fjj

5gBUlinSoS

|il

^

3P

S1oa

s"B-§CO*ojg|

11i1•J§*•0

E

o«

9

S

u

1a<

.9I•12E

3

o

o

«0

o

c*12

.8|•<•ab,

§

o

o

•0

g11|2

io§ •<u«' $ VI« o< f* p

B 3g SIsI'sllftsffc* 2§ 1oS^ ss.g1°if -

«0

* fe|13 §

* 3

§ §? iS -° "tT• S2 g) ^M^ n

ff I s•§ |i «jr |.! 8 .§ §{S jS ^f« ! §S "S, fe Bf \ C *«-• • (•*81 ,2 gS S i

(CS - 8*y d

& |1rr

period Several samples were collected during this period in order to monitor process parametersand characterize biological growth. Samples were collected on a weekly basis for TOC and mixedliquor suspended solids (MLSS) analysis and at the end of the culturing period (after approximatelyseven weeks) for COD, mixed liquor volatile suspended solids (MLVSS), ammonia and TKN, totalphosphorus, and Fenac* analyses. Samples were also monitored at regular intervals (every one totwo days) for pH, DO, and temperature.

For the BAG column test, samples were collected from the effluent at regular intervals (every twoto three days) for Fenac*, TOC, and BOD5 analyses and monitored for pH, DO,'turbidity, andtemperature. Samples were collected at less regular intervals (every week) for TCL VOAs andBNAs, TAL metals, cyanide, TSS, VSS, COD, ammonia and TKN, total phosphorus, and VOAaromatics. Some samples were also collected for total colifonn analysis. Influent samples werecollected for TSS, VSS, and total colifonn analyses during die BAC column test Some influentsample results from the GAC and activated sludge studies were used because the same influent wasalso used for the BAC column experiment

7.4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Bacteria CnKuring

The results for the bacteria culturing experiment are presented in Table 7-2 and indicate an increasein the suspended solids concentrations of all three biological cultures (Kalamazoo, Back River andDupont) over time. As discussed hi Chapter 5.0, the BOD5 exerted by the Back River and Dupontbiological solids was 100 mg/L and 80 mg/L, respectively, indicating the sustenance of biologicalactivity in the presence of groundwater from the Drake Chemical Site. The Kalamazoo solids didnot exert any significant BOD5 (2 mg/L).

Colnmn Experiment

The influent and column effluent results for the BAC column experiment are presented in Tables 7-3through 7-6. Figures 7-2 and 7-3 present the breakthrough curves for Fenac* and TOC, respectively.Table 7-3 presents the results for Fenac*, TOC and BOD5. The TOC values are reported as thearithmetic average of four analytical results. The 50 percent breakthrough of Fenac* occurred after30 days of column operation, and by the end of the experiment (seven weeks), approximately

D D:\WPS1\JOB27337\TREATABI\CHAP7.TS 7/16/92 MB 6 7-6

1g3M

£) Ei!

1 3i i5 M

a, 518

I

1o >i~iH

1?1"

||

|

1

|

*

I1

|

r»•

R

«

I:

ev

«

%

*

0

|

*

e

«

8

t*

1

ft0

V,

1o

S

|

?-

ft2

»

8'

•

ft3£

»"%

104

r»

7-7

•

•

•

ii:Sv

i;

<

1j!I

!|u, «S>

^r

j4 T"

<•!

i?4 S^

1

!5

1i5

1

1

11

j

11

IIo

i!ii|iiiiin 13!

irf

cf

icT

$o

8o

So

3

B

»

55

VO

•g

g

s

-

1.s

g

1a gx -S

-1-J5 <A

*!fti|^o ! §S S » **« «s v, g

** * * 3 <^

"If*-8 iaa^ |sss . - |^ o

n »?*s O n f . ~7 fl O «

TABLE 7-3

BAC COLUMN TEST RESULTS FOR CRITICAL PARAMETERS

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

Time(days)

Influent24789111417182021232528303235

373942444649

Fenac*«L)

2,8002.912/202155180

130/140390340480640

440/650/920710

860/9901,300

1,400/1,500

1,500/1,6001,500

1,700/1,9002,000/1,9002,100/2 002,200/2002 00/2300

1,900

Total Organic Carbon(mg/L)

26.25.6

4.7/1.955.011.210.0

9.2/10.713.415.515.220.0

183/17.9/15.115.6

15.95/17.8518.55

17.95/17.718.9/18.719.95

20.9/22.022.95/19.820.7/20.221.0/20220.95/19.4203/20.0

5-Day BiochemicalOxygen Demand

(rag/L)

2«ND15«l(K->NCH<«>4W1C)

NC2<«>NC5«!<•)

14«50lO>>

19/58*> .4«l/l<b)

io«!<«•)

1/2 -IgW9<b)

F GVWPS1UOB27337VTREATABI\TBL7-3.TS KV2U913«3 1 7-8

TABLE 7-3 (cont'd.)1C COLUMN TEST RESULTS FOR CRITICAL PARAMETERS

CHEMICAL SITELGE2

Time(days)

51535658

Fenac*(rsV)

2 00/2,0002,000/200£500/2 002300/2,400

Total Organic Carbon(mg/L)

18.5/20.4519.9/19.4193/18.218.85/17.3

5-Day BiochemicalOxygen Demand

(mg*L)

2/5W2<*>2»l/2<">

Notes: ND Not detectedNC No sample was collected

Each TOC result is an arithmetic average of the sample analyzed in quadruplets.

Several sample results for a given parameter on a given day indicate thesequential collection of samples at different times on that day.

(a) The standard seeds were used for BOD5 test

(b) The Back River seeds were used for BODS test

F G\WP51UOB27337\TREATABr\TBL7-3.TS 10/21/91 3:03 2 7-9

TABLE 7-4

BAG COLUMN TEST RESULTS FOR ORGANICS

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

bb(2-EdjyIhejcyI)pfatfiitato

Benzene

CMofobonzone

Toluene

Methylene Chloride

cis 1,2-Dichloroetheoe

ttini 1,2-DicUoroethene

1,2-DicUoioetiune

tort-Butyl methyl etfaer

Influent

ND

ND

ND

ND

7.5

ND

ND

21

ND

Time (day*)

6

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

14

14

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

17

ND

1.6

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

21

ND

ND

ND

2.0

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

28

11

ND

ND

ND

7.6

ND

ND

ND

ND

42

21

ND

ND

ND

8.4

5.0

5.0

ND

100

49

ND

ND

ND

3.0

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

56

32

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

DetectionLimits

10

1

1

1

5

5

5

5

100

Notes: ND = Not detectedAH concentrations reported in

B C!VWP51\JOB27337\TREA.TABI\raL7-«.TS 11/1/91 235 1 7-10

TABLE 7-5

BAC COLUMN TEST RESULTS FOR METALS

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

Contaminants

AluminumAntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumCalciumChromiumfebalt•r ——————[uopperIronLead

MagnesiumManganeseMercuryNickelPotassiumSeleniumSilver

SodiumThalliumVanadium

m

Influent

NDNDNDNDNDND1380.006NDND8.6ND1036.5NDND45.6

ND0.01592NDND0.01

Time (days)

14

NDND

ND0.1NDND1590.009NDND0.07ND1023.95NDND42.8ND

ND630NDND

ND

28

NDND

NDNDNDND1930.007NDND0.03ND86.553

ND

ND42.5ND

ND562NDND

0.01

42

NDNDND

NDNDND1560.007ND0.02NDND92.57.0NDND43.8ND

ND552

NDND

0.01

56

NDND

ND0.1NDND1380.011

NDND0.07ND1036.55NDND44.8

ND

ND510NDND0.02

DetectionLimits

0.10.050.050.10.0050.0050.010.0050.0050.020.030.030.010.010.00020.040.010.05

0.010.010.05

- 0.050.01

5otes: ND = Not detectedAll concentrations reported in mg/L

F G\WP51\IOB2733ATREATABI\TBL7-5.TS 10/16/914:08 1 7-11 AR3Q^803

g"§!!'j

Iii

«

*

9

»q

«s2

NO

E»lj

i

_,

g

g

£

^

§

C*

§

CO

^

Suspended Sol

ids

1

,_,

gg2fp

g~*

§«_<^

lie Su

spended Solids

3

-

8

•S

5?

«n

S?

T-l

OO

oo

S

I§

R0

0

oo

0000

oo8o

§o

r-So

CO00

r-oo

§o

u

*o

«NOCO

OO

§

S

g£S^

m

1

fe"S

1

^—

«— 1IT)

,j

00

S

8

S

«

O

VO

g

g"3S?

H

1O

§o

•o

So

^

0

o

So

55oo

«

Phosphorus

1

^

o

<

o

^

1sS2^

0

Coliform

I

^

— .

(•

1•apSP'Co •° <a t% «° £fS'sf1 « -s §stf ^ *O -. w*

t"S § «»1 3J> 0 5? n

G « O -3 M *9CQ *C7 « i? j (|5 t4-* 4-* "§) Q O m

SSB31 1II II U II § §

§ 8 |SISS^ §* * ¥*i

5 1S 2

LU

OCLUa. IIXLU

ccOQ

LULL

O>

00ci

I- . I*cI ~•- I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

oco

(0

p

oCM

13oifi*

CM CM <N CM r- T- T- «- O O O O IsI(l/Buj) oeuaj s

7'13

V

LUCC

OLU

1-

LU

£LUa.

2

1 Ks S< « 31 1!S 5CC LU13 ^0 5IsoCCX

CC03OO1-

_j

• £•B in

_ <o . -B" CM _• ii

*" I• 3

(fan "

:• ^ fl™ 4-»., • s•

"l*•

«"BB•

B •*

I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1

oCO

o

oCM

O

>.(0TJCD

F

•oriri

ICMAn/6ui) 001•

90 percent of Fenac* had broken through. If the breakthrough concentration of Fenac® is,000 figfL, every gram of carbon will remove 9.79 mg of Fenac®. Because GAC Column 2 was notoperated throughout the breakthrough of 1,000 /tg/L Fenac*, and Column 1 was operated underdifferent conditions, the carbon usage of the BAC cannot compare with that of GAC in breakingdown the removed Fenac* into the fraction absorbed on the carbon and the fraction removed bymicroorganisms. However, if the Fenac* breakthrough concentration is 300 jtg/L, every gram ofcarbon will remove 5.65 mg of Fenac* for the BAC and 3.75 mg of Fenac* for the GAC Column2. The difference 1.9 mg of Fenac* is removed by microorganisms. The 50 percent breakthroughfor TOC occurred after about 14 days of column operation, and after seven weeks, approximately85 percent of TOC had broken through. A slight decrease in the TOC results was observed duringthe last week of testing. The BOD5 results for the column effluent did not show any particulartrend.

^ 01

Table 7-4 presents the results for organic contaminants. Most of the contaminants were detectedat concentrations very close to their respective detection limits. When dealing with results that areless than the practical quantitation limit (which is about 5 to 10 times the method detection limit),

\

ere is a degree of uncertainty associated with the results. The practical quantitation limit is thelowest concentration that can be reliably achieved by well-operated laboratories within specifiedlimits . of precision and accuracy during routine laboratory operating conditions(Environmental Reporter, 1988). None of the organic contaminants exceeded the dischargestandards for the Lock Haven Sewage Treatment Plant. There are no specific standards for Fenac®treatment. However, if a standard of 1.0 parts per million (ppm) assigned for phenolic compoundsis applied, it will take about 25 days for Fenac® to break through based on the results of the study.Table 7-5 presents the results for metals; chromium, iron, and zinc were very close to their detectionlimits and hence not very reliable due to reasons explained above. None of the metals exceeded thedischarge standards. Table 7-6 presents the results for other conventional parameters (TSS, VSS,COD, cyanide, ammonia and TKN, and total phosphorous) and none of them exceeded thedischarge standards.

Because effluent pHs are between 6 and 8, no further adjustment was required. No obviousheadless was observed during the BAC experiment based on observed flow rate and effluentturbidity. Hydrogen peroxide was not injected as an oxygen source during the BAC operation

use the effluent DOs are always above 2 mg/L. Based on the DO monitored in the influent

D D:\WPS1\JOB27337\TREATABI\CHAP7.TS 7/lM»2 1:03 15 7-15 flR30l*807

(average 7mg/L) and effluent of the BAG (average 5mg/L), the oxygen uptake of themicroorganisms was about 2 mg/L throughout the experiment.

The disposal option for the BAC-used carbon will be discussed in Chapter 8. Spent carbon is usuallynot disposed of unless it contains PCBs and dioxin. Because these contaminants do not exist in theBAG influent, the used carbon will be regenerated instead of disposed. The regeneration costs forused carbon in the BAG are similar to those in the GAG and are described in Chapter 6.

7.5 COMPARISON TO TEST OBJECTIVES

The test objectives are stated in Section 7.1 and the following comparisons to these objectivescorrespond to the order in which they appear in that section.

• The BAG column experiment demonstrated 50 percent breakthrough for Fenac* andTOG of 30 days and 14 days, respectively. In comparison, the GAG columnexperiment showed 50 percent breakthrough times for TOG of six days; whereas forFenac* there was only about 13 percent breakthrough at the end of the 10-dayexperiment Comparatively, the BAG only had a breakthrough of five percent after11 days of column operation. The TOG and Fenac* concentrations did not decreasetoward the end of the experiment as was expected (Bouwer, 1982). Therefore, BAGtreatment did not demonstrate significantly better removal efficiencies compared toGAG treatment.

• The design parameters for the BAG column test were based on ACC's carbonadsorption system. The biological cultures from the Baltimore Back River WWTPand the Dupont Chamber Works PACT Plant demonstrated the presence ofbiological activity based on BOD5 results.

D D:\WF51\IOB27337VTREATABW2IAP7.TS 7/16/92 1:03 Ifi 7-16

AR304808

8

flR3iJ 1*809

8.0 SLUDGE DISPOSAL

8.1 OBJECTIVES AND RATIONALE

The objectives of the sludge disposal study were as follows:

• Evaluate settling characteristics of the metal precipitation and BAG sludges• Determine dewatering characteristics of the metal sludge• Evaluate the leaching characteristics of the cement-solidified metal sludge, the metal

sludge, and the ash of BAG particles• Evaluate the metal sludge production rate

8.2 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND PROCEDURES

The settling characteristics were determined by using the sludge volume index (SVI) test with thefollowing procedures

1) Allow one liter of TSS to settle for 30 minutes in 1-liter graduated cylinder for30 minutes

2) Record time versus the height of the sludge interface3) Measure the volume occupied by the sludge after 30 minutes4) Compute the SVI using the equation:

SVI _ sludge volume after settling (mL/L)TSS (mg/L)

The SVI is expressed as mL/g.

The dewatering characteristics of the metal sludge were determined by a subcontractor, RoedigerPittsburgh, Inc. using a belt filter press. The testing was conducted primarily for polymer selectionand to determine the feasibility of using a filter press for this particular type of sludge.

The leaching characteristics of the sludges were evaluated by subjecting the samples to the Toxicityharacteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test followed by analysis of the leachate for target metals.

The metal precipitation and the cement-solidified metal precipitation sludges had to be decanted or

D D:\WP51\JOB27337\TREATAB1\CHAP&XS 7/16/921:05 1 8-1 1 D Q fl I Q I H

evaporated to reduce moisture content. The BAG sludge was burned in a muffle furnace at 800°C.Because the volume of the BAG sludge was not sufficient to do a TCLP test, the metal precipitationsludge was mixed with the BAG sludge and the sample was sent to GFEL for TCLP metals analysis.The production rate of metal precipitation sludge was estimated based on the amount of TSSmeasured in the sludge.

Equipment, materials, and supplies that were needed in the sludge disposal study are summarizedin Appendix C.

83 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS

In order to compute the SVL a sample of the metal precipitation and BAG sludges were collectedfor TSS analysis. The TSS analysis would also be used for estimating sludge production rate. Asample of the metal precipitation sludge was also collected and sent to Roediger Pittsburgh, Inc. todetermine dewatering characteristics. To evaluate leaching characteristics, samples of the metalprecipitation sludge, cement-solidified metal precipitation sludge, and BAG plus metal precipitationwere collected for TCLP metals analysis. The sampling and analysis plan is presented in Table 8-1.

8.4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

The settling tests were conducted on the metal precipitation and BAG sludges. The relationshipbetween time and the height of the sludge interface for the metal sludges is recorded in Table 8-2.The results of the SVI test are presented in Table 8-3 and indicate that the metal precipitationsludge had good settling properties, whereas the biological solids associated with the BAG sludgedid not settle very well.

A vacuum filtration was tested for the metal sludge. The sludge was tested by Roediger primarilyfor polymer selection and for verifying the feasibility of using a filter belt press on this type ofsludge. The testing indicated that a dual polymer system would be most effective in attaining aclearer filtrate and lower polymer consumption. A 0.1 percent anionic polymer solution injectedin-line or before the press could maximize performance to achieve flocculation. The tests indicatethat a 0.8 percent feed sludge was thickened to about 8 to 9 percent dry solids and a cake of around27 to 28 percent was observed coming off the filter press. The solids capture rate was between95 to 97 percent and the volume reduction was above 97 percent. The volatile solids were found

D D:\WP5WOB27337\TREATABI\CHAPS.TS 7/16/52 1:05 2 8-2

flR30**8l I

TABLE 8-1

SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN FOR SLUDGE DISPOSAL

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

Parameter»

TAL: MetalsTAL: Cyanide

VGABNAVSSTSSTCLP/Metals

Numberof

Samples

1111113

QC Samples

RinsateBlank

0000000

FieldDuplicate

0000000

TotalSamples

1111113

Analytical Method

(A)EPA SW 846-9010EPA SW 846-8240

EPA SW 846-8270EPA 160.4EPA 160.240CFR268

Ibte: (A) The analytical methods are presented in Table 3-2, Note (C).

D D:\WPS1VOB27337\TREATAB1\TBLS-1.TS 7/16/92 1:07 1 8-3 SR3Q148I2

TABLE 8-2

METAL SLUDGE SETTLING TEST

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

Time(min)

0257911121314151721222530

Sludge Interface in 1 -litergraduated cylinder

(ml)

1000950800700650600550500450400

300

260

250

220

200

A G\WPSWOB27337\TBEATABI\TBLS-rrS 11/1/912:26 1 8-4 ,

TABLES-3

SETTLING TEST RESULTS

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

Type of Sludge

Metal PrecipitationBAG

Amount of SettledSolids (mlVL)

200IN

TSS(mg/L)

2,230540

SVI (mL/g)

90IN

Notes: TSS - Total Suspended SolidsSVI - Sludge Volume IndexBAG - Biological Activated CarbonIN - Indeterminant

A CWP51VOB27337VTREATABIVIBL8-3.TS 11/1/912:27 1 8-5 ARSONS 1

to be at 45 percent at a pH of 7.25. The results of the tests submitted by Roediger Pittsburgh, Inc.are presented in Appendix B in addition to various machine sizes for different operating systems.

Samples of metal precipitation sludge, cement-solidified metal precipitation sludge and the BAG plusmetal precipitation sludge were analyzed for TCLP metals. The positive results are presented inTable 8-4. None of the contaminants in the leachate were detected above their respective LDRs.

The TSS concentration of the metal precipitation sludge was 2,230 mg/L. Because 11.58 gallons ofmetal sludge are generated out of 245.58 gallons of raw groundwater in the metal precipitation andpH neutralization processes, the sludge production rate is estimated to be 105 mg for each liter ofraw groundwater. If fine bubble aeration is conducted to oxidize all of the iron, the sludgeproduction rate will be 335 mg/L based on the total iron concentration of 186 mg/L (Chapter 3).

8.5 COMPARISON TO TEST OBJECTIVES

The test objectives are stated in Section 8.1 of this chapter and the following comparisons are incorresponding orders:

- • The metal precipitation sludge demonstrated good settling properties whereas thebiological solids associated with the BAC sludge did not settle very well.

• The dewatering studies conducted on the metal precipitation sludge indicated thatby using a belt filter press on a polymer preconditioned sludge, a 0.8 percent feedsludge could be dewatered to give a 27 to 28 percent solids cake.

• The TCLP metals results for the metal precipitation sludge, the cement-solidifiedmetal precipitation sludge, and the BAC plus metal precipitation sludge indicatedthat none of the metals contaminants in the leachate were detected above theirrespective LDRs. These sludges can be disposed of in a Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA) landfill.

• The metal precipitation sludge production rate was estimated based on the resultsof TSS in the sludge sample (230 mg/L) and was estimated to be 105 mg for eachliter of groundwater.

D D:\WP5I\JOB27337\TREATABI\CHAP8.TS 7/l«/92 IMS 6 8-6 _ _ _ _

TABLE 8-4

SLUDGE TCLP METALS ANALYSIS

DRAKE CHEMICAL SITE

Contaminants

BariumChromium

Type of Sludge

Metal Sludge

0.2ND

Cement-SolidifiedMetal Sludge

ND0.10

BAC Sludge

0.3ND

LDRs

1005

Notes: All concentrations reported in mg/L

LDRs - Land Disposal RestrictionsBAC - Biological Activated Carbon

A C:\WPS1\K)B27337\TREATABI\TBL8-4.TS 7/30/92 10:34 1 8-7

IDmmmoomomCO

REFERENCES

rawer, Edward J. and P.L. McCarty, 1982. "Removal of Trace Chlorinated Organic Compounds byActivated Carbon and Fixed-Film Bacteria." Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 16, No. 12.

Butler, J.A. and C. Ockrent, 1930. "Studies in Electrocapillarity, EL" Journal of Physical Chemistry,Volume 34.

Ebasco Services, Inc., 1988a. Draft Feasibility Study Report, Phase IflA, Volume 1 Narrative, OperableUnits A and B, Drake Chemical Site, Lock Haven, Pennsylvania.

Ebasco Services, Lie., 1988b. Final Phase JH SI, Volume I Narrative. Drake Chemical Site, LockHaven, Pennsylvania.

Environmental Reporter, 1988. Method Detection Limits and Practical Quantitation Limits.September 2.

Freundlich, H., 1906. Ueber Die Adsorption in Leosungen. " Z. Phys. Chem. 57.

Gannett Fleming, Inc., 1990. Final Quality Control and Sampling Plan. Drake Chemical Superjund Site,Lock Haven, Pennsylvania.

Gannett Fleming, Inc., 1991. Final IreatabilUy Study Work Plan. Drake Chemical Superjund Site, Lockn, Pennsylvania.

Gannett Fleming, Inc., 1992. Final Aquifer Pump Test Report. Drake Chemical Superjund Site, LockHaven,- Pennsylvania.

Keinath, T.M., 1976. Design and Operation of Activated Carbon Absorbers Used for IndustrialWastewater Decontamination. AIChE sym. ser., No. 166, Vol. 73.

Langmuir, L, 1916. Amer. Chem. Soc., 38.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989. Guide for Conducting Treatabttity Studies UnderCERCLA. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA/540/2-89-058.6

B C:WPSl\K)B27337\TREATABI\Rm'ERBNC.TS V6m 231 1 R-l flR30l*8!8

~0-omgomCO

APPENDIX A

PRELIMINARY PROCESS DESIGN FOR PROPOSED TREATMENT TRAIN

R30I4820

S3 Gannett FlemingS.-3I ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS *"

SUBJECT f7rg.<V*"' r Pncerj tS' __ SHEET NO. / OF *6l #•&, JOB NO.

ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS ** BY /? J Z- DATE l /frlCHKO. BY Afct>X

>-ff

/7

., 2 x, £>.£>/ 7 3 *v;<>~.......-....-- . ..

•'•i "'

/

2 ^ /< ' o. o

e« ,y <*<jt

_h 344:B-2[44

O

ouoj| *BIQ) u|

SUBJECT_______;______________________ SHEETNO. -^ OF

I Gannett FlemingENGINEERS AND PLANNERS BY________DATE______CHOX BY _______DATE

/

'

L. y — ' x £> * 2 I •< iv' * (3.

____^^ |,,....

.i..T_..i. ..___ :......r..- rM.^ - -.-o'• i

-4-- —- i 4--'r:J K*'1/" CrtV 'fc,.-

!-"

_^.__ _._I_j.—^——j_

———

Gannett Fleming*"

SUBJECT _______________________________ SHEETNOt ± OF

ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS " BY_______DATE_____CHKDl BY_______DATE

/

f^ '•

_„.„.__.._____...._. ... ...... . Ti t

O rTZ'l—-—.—..—.:1~.". . -.--'. . ~ . - - - - - - -

<L .,4™ >jOc

_L ,__.:.,_ __ j.._M '/».TA;.o ^ H* ruuxs -?.& fsr /%•* <j*t <n,

I < ! LL U. ;/?*• fr~'

o I——— H—— —

____ 1

I

i

1

j I

[ '! —— j — i

— [_4__J_J__U•

i • ;!

j • :—————— L—— 1 ——

i • - j

^ .•I

h9i b——r

2.'K __ : :7TT - ™—r—i

4-

SUBJECT__________________\_________ SHEETNO. 5~ OF

[Gannett FlemingENGINEERS AND PLANNERS BY_________WOE______CHKft BY________DATE

t M

*

•t

=. i

\ : , ! : '• : i ' . . I [ ' ' ' • • \ <**•£- //

t: i

^

1 '•

j

'i, i

1

-11 !' i' i

—

, .,„.

•.._—

.'—

——

A/- f^L A/, ' i•'"•- /7 /'

— i ——— ; —— .i i ii i jT i

1 !! !

Ci*n(£(t

\

IHIL*. . L! i ; I_L,J_ i i

! ! t

1_L-1_L'

SB Gannett FlemingIGi ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS **

SUBJECT________________________________ SHEET NOl t> OF -i__________________________________________________ JOBNCX__________

ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS ** BY________DATE______CHKIX BY________DATE

I- 5*50* c: ( '

•" 4

&l#<Lo*Jt

O ,2- £-Xt»« «' C*vX Zl

I

. i __!..-._ .

-—nvi

_|——

SUBJECT________________________________ SHEETNO. 7 OF

I Gannett flemingENGINEERSANDPLANNERS ** BY________DATE CHKIX BY DATE

i-:.~f-r-J-.1 __.._„..__ .__!_... 1_. . __L- L.

S

. „ <

/.OJ

.* ir)

__[......_;_. ..,i__.___4_ . _. ; . ... , ._ .. .. i_ : . „ - .-

j ' . ' i ! : ' ' i,._.}.__j__..|__H————f.-.. ..-. - ... - .. :... - _ . -....-. i-...- .I......———— ..

1 ;. J _ '_4..__|_ j ^ j j

SUBJECT _______________________________ SHEET NO. OF

Gannett Fleming__ ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS **ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS " BY________OKI CHCD. BY MFE

lift**** TSJ 5 (p-<ff "%:

- .0- '-a

o

1 1 I

1 1 i1 i

J !

SUBJECT ___________________________________ _ SHEETNa ? OF

Gannett f lemingmmENGINEERS AND PLANNERS *~ BY________DATE______CHKR BY_______DATE

"T"__ _....

'. \!

i i • : i t , . i.-. • ' "r r~ j '1 ' ^ • ' L 1! • 1 i : ! '

i j i '• i :

! T

;.- f "- .?..

r..L ^ "'""'rr;7r.T~-"i . i

' ' t ' '• "I [ i "j"

' J '

j r i • i i • .^«««t l^d/b i- I

! : ! • * i

)l..—,_|_._4-_i_

5-. ' ; -r^ ,I ' i • :

FT-it

i j j

i 'i ' *i •' 1

• i i !1 • !

1i

! iL i i__L__j

• i -

i i ' i: i : J; : i :: r: r:• i • i i ' . i

; I '•" - -{ -f~- j"

! A D f——— -M^V-0 :i

_._T._T! !

.;._i_L._,_

I Gannett FlemingcTAl/?l»*ceroo A am EM AAiftfeoe> •*

SUBJECT _____ . _____________________________ SHEET NO. ID OF

eNGINEERSANDPLANNERS * Bt ________ DATE ______ CHKDi BY DOE

let* <o0Uor/,Ak/t<L,-i f/.

r--

-•r —— 1

:i1

1

r I '" f

,•

, i !1 i !rT i' 1

i ' !

; : i! W! Ai . i1 i ii ' i

,

! ' =• j ' ' 1 •

w«i*/»-A^ U/: ^ork ^i ! i 1 i *

1 : 1 11 ! 1 : " =

i i

:: .

,

z- 21

l__, ._J _r,,_!.._J__i

ri L. 4_. I-_.,i__._ _.._._._. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ _ ,

^ ___ i __^_

P- Jofff

£I efetf" •

CALGON. ACTIVATEDo' sf, MODEL 10 CARBON

ADSORPTION SYSTEM PRODUCTBULLEtlN

DESCRIPTIONThe Calgon Model 10 Adsorption System has been design-ed for the removal of soluble organic chemical contaminantsfrom water or wastewater using granular activated carbonproducts. The system is particularly suitable for applicationswith low levels of organic contaminants or with flow ratesup to 700 gallons per minute per vessel.The Model 10 unit is a complete water treatment system,

skid mounted for ease of installation, and is provided withpiping for series or parallel operation. The skid feature allowsrapid installation because only the steel skid must be attach-ed to a foundation, while the adsorption vessels and pipingare then attached to their proper location on the steelframework.The Model 10 system is provided with pre-assembled pip-ing sections for influent and treated water, utility water andcompressed air, carbon transfer and venting operations.Water and utility piping need only be brought to the Model10 and connected to complete the installation of the treat- AVAILABLE AUXILIARY SERVICESment process.The Model 10 adsorber vessels are ASME coded for 75 * UUgon Carbon fce™cepsig, lined for corrosion resistance and are designed to con- nDTinUAl nDCDATinM MOHCCtain 20,000 Ibs of Calgon Carbon's granular activated car- UP 'IUNAL WtKA | IUIM MUUtbbon. Carbon transfer piping allows use of Calgon Carbon's • Downflow fixed bed orconvenient carbon service including special transfer trailers. Downflow fixed bed with backwash capability.At a flow rate of 350 gpm, each adsorber provides 15 minutes • Series or Parallel flow.contact time.Your Calgon Carbon Technical Sales Representative can SPECIFICATIONS

help you evaluate the suitability of the Model 10 to satisfy Vessel Diameter: 10 ftyour requirements. If needed, adsorption evaluation tests or ASME Code: Design 75 PSIG @ 150° Fstudies to determine applicability and economics can be ar- (higher pressure vessel ratings available)ranged. Calgon Carbon offers adsorption equipment in many Pipe Connections: Process pipe: Sized per flow rate;other sizes, and carbon supply and exchange services to meet flange connection std.your particular needs. Water pipe: 1-1/2-inch flange__ ir»r-« Carbon VolumeFEATURES per Vessel: 715 cu.ft. (nominal 20,000 Ibs-• Proven design—downflow fixed bed adsorption. granular activated carbon)• Pre-engineered package—simple and quick installation. Weight: Empty—38,000 Ibs.;• ASME code vessels compatible with Calgon Carbon Operating—230,000 Ibs.Service. Pressure Relief: 72 PSIG nominal setting

• Vinyl Ester Resin lined vessels suitable for potable water. Backwash Rate: 1000 GPM (if required)• Pipe sizes are designed for the flow rate desired. Transfer Mode: Air pressurized slurry transfer• Distributor underdrain for even distribution. TYPICAI FT/1W RATFS Axn• Manway for maintenance access.• Backwash capability can be added if suspended solids arepresent.

GPM

ContactTime

Minutes GPM

ContactTime

Minutes350 30 700 15

Designed to minimize operating labor and avoid manualhandling of carbon.Designed for complete removal of exhausted carbon tominimize problems with contaminated material remainingin vessel.Capable of bulk carbon filling and removal.Granular activated carbon fill and discharge piping. NOTE: Smaller Calgon Carbon Service Systems are available

for smaller flow rates and lower carbon usage applications.

——————_—————————:——'flf}'5'oi»83l' ' "• -© Calgon Carbon Corporation 10/89 Bulletin 27-130b

Series Operation Parallel Operation

>p -.

MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION CAUTIONAND AVAILABLE OPTIONS Wet activated carbon preferentially removes oxygen fromVessel Lining- Vinyl Ester coating (nominal 40 mil) the air. In closed or partially closed containers and vessels,suitable foT potable water and most wastewater °*yg«» depletion may reach hazardous levels. If workers areapplications to enter a vessel containing carbon, appropriate sampling andZV "" . _ . _ , . . j _t • work procedures for potentially low-oxygen spaces should

• Piping and Valves: Carbon steel piping and cast iron ^ fof,owed ding n applicable Federal and Statebutterfly(valves Oprocessjand stein- irements.less steel ball valves (carbon trans- ^fer). For information regarding human and environmental exposure, call (412)

•Optional flanged polypropylene lined piping With ™-™*>and rey**u speak *>Regulatory a*d Trade Jff*r*.diaphram valves for process water. ^ Cajbon Corporation reserves the right to change

• Underdrain Collection System: Polypropylene slotted specifications without notice for components of equal quality.nozzles.

•External Coating: Epoxy Mastic Coating• Optional polyurethane coating system for more corrosiveenvironments.

o

For additional information, contact Calgon Carbon Corporation,Box 717, Pittsburgh, PA 15230-0717 Phone (412) 787-6700

CALGON-__ -*

CALGON CARBON CORPORATION

Printed in U.S.A.

2-6

Z5oL_

vx a.0°Q) 10L_ ^QQ ®

o

CD cLL. J.

~s!IQ_

^^ SUBJECT__________________________ SHEETNO. /1- OF

Iffi Gannett Fleming ——————————————— ***±———HP* ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS **ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS " BY________DATE______CHOX BY_______DATE

*'

' i— i ————— — -f • ~r=r- r- - -/-_i-- > r-.1 • r ( TT_ _ _ _._ _ _Jgt _ * - — ~ •

t>~/

JLY _.•—...i

... . . j

!'

I. 1. Ll! i 1

~LJ ' "i i":" : i ^ r 7; "- = L _ ;/ As-**- tin (2L— *•

1 i • i i L_ . L! i : i i , , j

o ———_|J j | J • i M-

SUBJECT______:______________________'.. 8HEETNO. l£~ OF

El: Gannett Fleming ———————————————— *sm—C3I FAIfi/WFFBS AND PIANNFRS **ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS " BY________DATE______CHKDl BY______ DATE

I

A/»

T

~~7

-J.

^_ ,_ ' . ! _ : _ . ; _i ,_ ! ;_1 , _.__' ______J____J.

I Gannett FlemingSUBJECT _______________________________ SHEETNO. / OF

ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS BY _______ DATE _____ CHKP. BY ______ DATE

i ! j- j .4 nrz:..: . .!_»__. :_...Li ;~7_: [ _ ' " : • r- : !' : !_j__-

Ttffe--

_j—..._——,j ^,3 <

•——'f. . ,-^ . j.— —„ _ _ .—r

'JLJL j__ .

/__

"~"

f Si i i. .S ! ! ; ' ! • .

<

'

lj

.-i.... •; ji ii !

' ' i •————

i !r"t i ii ji

ii'1

... J

3—(, ——— pyg' 1

Tt6_ ^__j_i

/ • • ,J-T— , iL2,/ i !T2— ' ii _ Li 1u i JLR!3.f

7 /fc

' 1I ! p— '-^

~~i ; . i |JiJS-ir L.. '.....!...

SUBJECT____________________;_________• SHEET NO. / 7 OF

S3 Gannett Flemingg-3 ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS **ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS " BY________DATE______CHOX BY DATE

_, , C- ;. j , . - , . - , -

! i - I !

» 7 sa» .- , fl<\o cf

f

CM. c* / ok & "L

I = ; ! i ' ! ' * T iL....„:....! ...I... i.— ..... .,_._.....,.. ..jj: : i i

1 TI

I i

J J J J JNominal Capacities for Recessed Chamber Filter Plates*

o

Plat*Size470mmwith 30mm(1.100cakethickness

630mmwith 32mm(1.25")cakethickness

800mmwith 32mm(1.25")cakethickness

12OOmmwith 32mm(1.25")cakethickness

ISOOmmwith 32mm(1.25")cakethickness

2mwith 32mm(1.25")cakethickness'NonmetallicOther cake tlConsult a Ne

Number ofChambers

1510152025303540120253035404550556012530354045506070809010015060708090100110120130

16080100120140150

1100125150

Fitter Area in ft*Open FiltrateDischarge

4.120.440.761.081.4101.8122.1142.4162.87.3

146.8183.5220.2256.9293.6330.3367.0403.7440.4

Closed FiltrateDischarge

3.618.236.454.672.891.0109.2127.4145.66.5

130.0162.5195.0227.5260.0292.5325.0357.5390.011.0273.8328.5383.2438.0492.8547.5657.0766.5876.0985.51095.025.4

1271.01525.21779.42033.62287.82542.02796.23050.43304.639.5

2368.23157.63947.04736.45525.85920.573.2

7317.09146.210975.5

Cake Volume in f t=»Open FiltrateDischarge

.2

.91.82.83.74.65.56.47.4.47.39.110.912.714.616.418.220.021.8

Closed FiltrateDischarge

.2

.91.72.63.54.35.26.16.9.36.78.410.011.713.415.116.818.420.1

.614.317.220.022.825.728.634.340.045.851.557.21.262.675.287.7100.2112.8125.3137.8150.4162.92.1

124.7166.3207.9249.5291.1311.8

4.1411.2514.0616.8

)lates.ticknesses, plate types and press capacities available.itzsch representative.

Netzsch Incorporat119 Pickering WayExton, PA 19341-1393215/363-8010Fax:215-363-0971Telex: 173237

400/01/9/89

I Gannett FlemingSUBJECT________________________________ SHEETNO. / 9 OF

ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS " BY_______DATE______CHKIX BY_______DATE

JT. Condition 2. C Jt•/W tfrtnW-OAjkv' &»Ut</~tel

"**"" ~

•7------ • -•- ,r • ~ ••<•••--•i ._.... ...._.._ j _.„..,....,. .. . !.. .-, ...;.

~<, fr<,iu**nti<»>s «*- £*/ti-H•*, f)

.. ...r««k»

i -' ,5-0-)„

,7.

-f—

_.l_L

~ -.p-

^

•. .' I • i ' i :

L : ' J J j ! -- - r | ; A' . ; ; X~TJr : " ' 'I

u : ' 1! i '

I I- —— f—1 !L__L_Ji1 1

i i i i

( --~ra

4. 0 ' ,AJ „

y- * 1 T"T . I i" | \ffr- ~• ' • j_ ! ; ! • i i . ! ;

-..._ r-.A/jJi V0jvv£_ T7I _; • L ' i 1 . . . . ....:.1 y- V ' • i i

_ I i "r 4^ —— 7.j- f Hj

' ' ' / ' ^jj ? "" 7 A ^JC^/ 1 ' •<b>- i- ! " ; ;' / ! f ^J! : !

. f i : j i i : , . | | \J \ I ! iif f i L Q > ,^ ^ r~ ~\ my f^_ ' -^ '£f t- S" '' | ; j < 7 TV/ VCX^ ~ ~-~<L ^j *'j ^^- , jX^ i

•fHiftTcl ! !<y '..-.I—I .; 'jh\ «J U f O O j . • • • v

20 Gannett FlemingIC3 FUCUNEKOS AND PI AHHFRS "

SUBJECT________________________________ SHEETNO. Z^ OF__________'__________________________ JOBNOL__________

ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS ** BIT________DATE______CHKD. BY_______DATE~ - — ~ . , j I i - , p-.-r

u

!__:-„i

:

f '

————— ,

• i• ' fi

h-L— ^; i

j

i__ ^_

c:

- a-

c,ft — .

J*

1f 1

;Qr% iv1! > •i 'i

^

__ i

^$3~

1i 1

c£*Lt«M~I I

_rtfe __Loxi! i

! . i : -i!

i

;. * . — i' i L i -i ;

1

! :

i • ii • -1 ' :j" •••-•—:••-

! ' ' 1i -: ;

ii !,

.1,

— " ™--

. .....

,!

:

'-

:

--J _____

""" "* "

t

^

to Arx. v-

V.

.

<Vt

—j

.,_)

L• -1

^Sto7

i

—

/

//

i r !!

/? | J '|

J«A x; i_.:.. _,...

jr k pij/Cx• 1 i !: i :— _ —— i — j —— „ —

:-' ; (^i -

.

—— • —— \ —— 1 ' !«UM, ! ;/o; A ' ; .— r ^ f ii 1 i i: i I i

^ ( >

— ; —— 1

- — i- - • •

::

,

1 )

., .L^ & G

u

\

P

1 ! J : ;

._ _A.oH— .J*f

' ' ' ; i

:

" " ~ " " " " " ' T" " " - - - -

V7 1/ *»»/(? «7. A Al l

^^ ' J

b. o v^ /^ i_ : : __ 1 i

/ ^L :--••}-•+; -"•-;•.

.<4

i- i: T"i i

; fi i' ! i

! !i _ i

i

1 . :

4_ • . _ : .....1 • • . •

I ! ; ' ' ' :

-1

—— .............

1

Ij

Gannett FlemingSUBJECT________________________ SHEETNO. *• ( OF

ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS BY_________DATE_______CHKP. BY ____ DATE

7 - .<$ 3~gL.

ctfe<?(

"ft.

SUBJECT__________,_________________________ SHEET NO. 2-2- OF

Gannett Fleming JOB NO.ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS " BY________DATE______CHKD. BY DATE

]_.»—- •—JU) v^

<

o

t I

I '•

!

.

1 : \\ '' !

;

'

i v

... :.. i. ...I.. ;.. .: ...

' ;: i

i i n j. : ' •_ ____ ..'...J.....1. _.!.....•„. .: L_:_..

! ; • i

' ' 1 i ; . ! '— : - "trn 'U.. . ;. r ._,_... ,.... -.., ——— ,. _.

1 !J__L

I1-1-j1 —— , —

i

j

- ——— I —1 i

' ' !i ' >

:._ '. .h -r~ )---T •

f ""i " r"~! :

! i •- i . . . . : .

4+4-i : fl D O

1 ; :

i I '

——— ._ii1

SUBJECT______________________________ SHEETNtt 2-2 OF

I Gannett Fleming JOB NO.ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS ~ BY_____ DATE CHKIX BY____ DATE

_ /o £&r\>os\ adsor

K>

- j ^ f 2, Q o

T i ' i (7 , . . , . ! i ; i,-— .- ..... • (._-— ,_

»"~'! ' .' ': 'jj ' 1-i ' • ! ri _ 4 _ L...... t, ih 1 • ; !

i ;j t

1 |i i

• ii

1 f

. • • I :•' s i

i

i rr

•" "" ! "

L |_.,, _ _ uj : - -. -,,Jflt t

\ •

! ."! i

' - , f; __,__;1

; !_,j_ ! 5T «U* *;'--.: 5^ p***- *.J> •' \ ' ' v s ' '* , * ' t • *

: i ' > i i ; i • • .; . . . . •

t? (-.A.rpof\ KG A i**rQ- *" & •* '0 •

~T"

I I

CD>=5oCD15O

oO 5

CQ oO .<-> "8O s0) J

11 °LL.

Q

(£

I '*-*O

O

I I I I I I I I I

4

O O O O O O O O O

SUBJECT___________________________________ SHEETNa -Z " OF

Gannett FlemingENGINEERS AND PLANNERS *~ El________DATE______CHKD. BY ___ DATE

-.«r; -a*;

L-u

__ ! _ .j __ oj\{ 6?aov"; .-r.._AAm-t_.,- 4. i_i*T-i. „ o"0'^i,. . ,2

L. LJ

Ii «

.... .i-— j —

L_. _. 4_.

i 1

i

!—— 1....

jIIiiI

_.

i

i'•i

!ii

r~.

,„£_ .... _ .„.. j .._ ,_,,_.!,. ^< j • •

: i ' ;• I • ;.. . ... .; - ... .

! ', I • ' !

1 • 1 ' i !. I -T.-J:"; j-14 ... ' « ! . J !

i !i >•—+—-•[- --1.. ......

__.| 1 -jI l_1 Ui

— J

«

—

Q.I

' ! ! L ' l l' i !

' ' ' i i i( ; t

' ___ |_ J ___ ' _•_„ . .. ____ j

• • ' ' 4_ '0!| C~" ! ! ] : ^ "^

SUBJECT________________________________ SHEET NO.

o

Gannett FlemingENGINEERS AND PLANNERS " BY_______DATE______CHKD. BY DATE

•3.

u

^ (W

,.

O :-. -J-

JOB NO.

APPENDIX B

COST ESTIMATE FOR PROPOSED TREATMENT TRAIN

SUBJECT C*-&~ki*. Cshetn.'e*/ u&t-fijnsJ & £- SHEET NO. / OF ~7

I Gannett FlemingI ?-• (/•*!» ii- rt»-» « kir^ ru < aiAffr ^ **MlGINEERs"AND nANNERS ""Si BV M .S/yV/vDArE x/-a»>feaCHKO. BY RJ L. DATE

t4

i £>'

\

t

V.

r\

J L

r\

J V.

^

J-f

.\

SUBJECT_______________________________ SHEET NO. 2. OF

S Gannett Fleming —ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS — BY D/JFE_____CHOXBY______DATE

2.

7

of CVy&z. F/sx-A-Tvb-e. 3 72.Cos?4" <J>6IOOO -7,000

O

.. .,; —— j ——| j

[ 1 ' ' r

i '. * "

1 . ' ! i ; I : i" ; I i ' i • ; . "I :i l l i i 1 • - :

j

r"

•=- --J--I

t !

oI I

SUBJECT________________________________ SHEETNO. =; OF 7

| Gannett Fleming' **

JOB NO.ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS ** BY ________ DATE _____ CHKDlBY _______ DATE

3*

3)000 Jk- .*<«7 6j.4/6~3.

r*. I > 3.0O cf

, .

-12

-14

.16

PORTEC KEM-TUBESeries 850-HL

^ »PLlOVTiONS

rtreatrrtent y?• Neutralization of water and wastes''" •tFood processing y;

SERIES 850-HL M-I1 Dust Collector : _\ • *"; "'2.'Combination Manhole Pressure/

.Relief

•i

t' ' V' l.-"*0 " "££&!•-•' ligMi- •' ' • f t \' , t'j* Jkj"'« t1 .*'';',L -'. ."V?-* *>J*3-iC''.-• __ £ta--J?' ' i >- _ _ ••"?»: iS,* 1*1 *•"'--.i.1*.

11<UItiasonicXevel Indicator J '>• , ; ivs•:"*#.'. -»- ,-- .-$#»&• -s>^- .. ••A- -xi' - ' *"'j ->-12. Low Bin Signal •.I Live Bin;:|tojttom••;.-;- 'Xu.-.--"'. ',"''i4ttVb)urnetric; .Feeder « T

Pumps,M«,. -W-1 Graphic Dfeplay Control P nel ' '1

1 H;;' ;' ':$J V''H?'% A :

SUBJECT______________________;_________ SHEET NO. 4- OF 7

Gannett FlemingENGINEERS AND PLANNERS *" BY_______DATE_____CHKa BY_______PATE

sp, #*"• - /.03T&S = vS" X7

1,2.

JOB NO.

/on 2-

of

I hw

LamellaGravitySettler/Thickener

T;I »('!(•.tl c.rL' -'I- Hi it It' -

tf —n:>,i' t Urt'-^pk. .' t-

Gannett IlemingI ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS "*

SUBJECT SHEET NO. > OF -rJOB NO.

BY DATE CHKD.BY DATE

/Y*7 £«*/2?

of

-">r

/ ft,3)

J4& Jh. .<3&

,lt.00 cf

7/ 70O

JJs. . -1- . aQ- , 66 ,x 5 o*6*£. 73>OOQ

June 26, 1992

To: Gannett Fleming

Att&: Project Managers

Re: Transportation and RecyclingDear Project. Managers

EMA, Inc. would like to introduce our new price list fortransportation and recycling of the non-hazardous petroleumhydrocarbon contaminated soil from Eastern Pennsylvania.

Cost Evaluation

Transportation and Recyclings (22 ton minimum on last load)

Philadelphia PA Area - $57.SO per net tonNorristown, PA Area - $56.SO per net tonAllentown PA Area - $56.00 per net tonPottstown, PA Area - $55.SO per net tonReading, PA Area - $55.OO per net ton

Prices shall remain in effect for tbixty.days.

Terms: To be discussed.

EMA, Inc. would appreciate the opportunity to perform our qualityservices for your company.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

sincerely.

J-. Radiganes Representative

'MANAG '9W ALTERNATIVi, INC • USXTOWER • SUITE3260. PITTSBURGH, PA 15219 • (4-12)471-9936 • fflX (412) 471-9818

AUSISINRECVCUNG.I O IERA ON&lANDFla

Kft Gannett FlemingJC3J ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS *"

SUBJECT________________________________ SHEET NO. K OF____________________;________________ JOB NO.__________

ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS ** BY DATE CHKD. BY __ DATE

y,

,-2 .

^

OST

ffl Gannett FlemingIQll ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS

SUBJECT________________________________ SHEET NO. ~7 OF 7_______'______" _______________ JOBNa

ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS BY________DATE______CHKIX BY_______DATE

77*3. cz-pr-/ / < <as/ /S*- 7 =.

4 -7 /

/v

/ 7/.S-of feAcj yiS J2

4 J &$'

o

DynaSand FilterThe Proven Conceptin Sand Filtration

The DynaSand Filter is a continuousbackwash, upflow, deep-bed granularmedia filter. The filter media is continu-ously cleaned by recycling the sand

internally through an airlift pipe and sand washer.The regenerated sand is redistributed on top of thesand bed, allowing for a continuous uninterruptedflow of filtrate and reject (backwash) water.Feed is introduced into the bottom of the filter,then flows upward through a series of riser tubesand is evenly distributed into the sand bedthrough the open bottom of an inlet distributionhood (A) (Fig. 1). The influent flows upward,through the downward moving sand bed (B), withthe solids being removed. The clean filtrate exitsfrom the sand bed, overflows a weir (C), and isdischarged from the filter (D). Simultaneously, thesand bed, along with the accumulated solids, isdrawn downward into the suction of an airlift pipe(Fig. 2) which is positioned in the center of thefilter. A small volume of compressed air isintroduced into the bottom of the airlift (E). Theair lifts the dirty sand up the airlift pipe, and airscours the sand at a rate of 100 to 150 SCFM/ft.2.The impurities are scoured loose from the sandduring this violently turbulent upward flow. Uponreaching the top of the airlift (F), the dirty slurryspills over into the central reject compartment (I).The sand is returned to the sand bed through thegravity washer/separator (G) which allows the fastsettling sand to penetrate, but not the dirty liquid.The washer/separator is placed concentricallyaround the upper part of the airlift and consistsof several stages to prevent short circuiting (Fig.3). By setting the nitrate weir (C) above the rejectweir (J), a steady stream flows upward, counter-current to the sand, through the washer sectionand cleans the sand at a backwash loading rateof 50-100 gpm/ft.2. A continuous reject flow exits near the top of the filter (K),carrying away the dirt and impurities removed in the filter. Since the sand hasa higher settling velocity than the dirt particles, it is not carried out of the filter.The clean sand is redistributed by means of a sand distribution cone (H). The sandbed is continuously cleaned while both a continuous filtrate and a continuous rejectstream are produced.

1989 PARKSON CORPORATION

APPENDIX C

EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, AND SUPPLIES NEEDED FOR EACH PROCESS

METAL PRECIPITATION

Scale:

Pilot Scale:

Graduated cylindersVolumetric flasksBeakersFunnelsMicropipetPipettipsStir barStopwatchSqueeze bottlepH standard solutions (pH = 4, 7, and 10)ThennometersMiscellaneous supplies (gloves, paper towels, baggies, wrap, etc.)DI waterHPLC grade waterSix-paddle stirrerpH meter and pH electrodeMagnetic stirrerBalanceTurbidimeterBuret and buret supportsChemicals (NaOH, HC1, alum, FeCl3, lime, polymer)

ISO-gallon tanksSteam cleanerGeneratorsAir compressor with aeration manifoldCoarse bubble diffuserFine bubble diffuserFlocculator50-gallon drumsSubmersible pumpSump pumpMixers5-gallon cubitainersGarden hosespH, temperature, conductivity, and DO meter with calibration standardsBarrel filter0.45-/tm filter paperChemicals (NaOH, ferric chloride, soda ash, polymer)

D D:\WPS1\K)B27337\TREATABIVAPPC.TS 7/17/92 4:21 2 - _

fiR 3 04860

FILTRATION

Filtering flasksVacuum filter holders0.45-pm membrane filterDI waterTurbidimeter

ACTIVATED SLUDGE

GAG

lOL-ReactorsPeristaltic pumpsFlow controllersAir supply apparatusAir stonesAir flow meters50-gallon drumsEffluent TanksMiscellaneous tubings & clampsDO meter with chart recorderPortable GCGraduated cylindersBeakersDeionized waterCoolers

FlasksTubing and fittingTest tubes or vialsColumns (60 x 5.0 cm diameter and 20 x 1.5 cm diameter)Activated carbonsRotary agitation apparatusPeristaltic pump with speed controllerAuto sample collectorpH meterBalanceOvenMortar pestleSieves and coverDessicatorCubitainerGlass woolDO meter and probeThermometersPlastic bottlesDI waterHPLC grade water

D D:\WPSl\K)B27337\TRBATABI\APrc.TS 7/17/924:21 3

Sand mediaFiltering flasksVacuum filter holders

BAG

CubitainersPailsColumns (60 x 5.0 cm diameter and 20 x 1.5 cm diameter)Chemicals (nutrients, NaOH, HC1)Sand mediaActivated carbonsBacteriaBottlesTubing and fittingControl valvesVolumetric flasksGraduated cylindersParafilmBeakers15-liter glass tanksPeristaltic pump with speed controllerDO meter and probepH meterBalanceThermometerTurbidimeter

SLUDGE DISPOSAL

Chemicals (Portland cement)Vacuum filter holdersFiltering flasksOvenMuffle furnaceDishesWool-lined glovesGlass watchpH meter

D D:\WP51UOB27337\TREATABl\AFPC.TS 7/17/92 4:21 4 O D O f} {, O C O

APPENDIX D

METAL SLUDGE DEWATERABILITY TEST REPORT

R30.U863

/ -. \

Equipment for Waslewater Treatment

RECEIVEDAugust 21, 1991

Gannett Fleming, Inc.200 East QuadVillage of Cross-KeysBaltimore, MD 21210

Attention: Mr. Rong-Jin Leu

Subject: Laboratory Bench Test ResultsGannett Fleming Job No. Reference 27337.068

Dear Mr. Leu:

*

I have attached a copy of our laboratory bench test results foryour review. We tested primarily for polymer selection andperformance for the feasibility of using a Belt Filter Press onis particular type of sludge.

rough our testing, we discovered that a dual polymer systemwould be recommended to attain a clearer filtrate and to keep thepolymer consumption low.

By using an anionic polymer, we were able to maximize performanceby providing a .1% solution to be injected in-line or before thepress to achieve flocculation.

According to these tests, a .Q% feed sludge (going to the press)was able to be thickened to 6-9% dry solids, and cake drysolids coming off the press were maintained around 27 - 26%.Capture rate was between 95 and 97x, and the volume reduction wasabove 97X. The volatile solids were found to be at 45%, with aph of 7.25.

At the bottom of the laboratory test sheet, under machine sizing,should give you an indication of the gallons throughput yieldingthe pounds of dry solids per hour of 27% cake dry solids exitingthe press.

Test Report Summary:When looking at these results with respect to using a Belt" FilterPress, we feel very comfortable in recommending a Belt Filteress for this particular type of sludge. When observing thessure being applied to the sludge, the sludge did not squeeze

Roediger Pittsburgh, Inc. —;3812 Route 8 Allison Park. PA 15101 Telephone: (412) 487 fl 3 Q fyQ £ (412)487-6005

Roediger Pittsburgh, Inc.

Page Two

through the belts, nor did It stick to the belts to make thesludge difficult to remove. If the sludge dry solids Infeed wouldbe concentrated to more than .8% ds, it 1s possible that thepolymer consumption would go down further, and cake dry solidswould possibly increase.

If you should have any questions in regards to this report,please give me a call. Thank you for your interest in RoedigerPittsburgh Equipment, and if you should need any assistance onany future projects you may have, please keep us in mind. .-.••'

Very truly yours,

ROEDIGER PITTSBURGH, INC.

Randy CableField Service Coordinator

RC/jtEnclosure

vO ft

»* '

2

«» W

t-< « Co .o oCU t-« 4J

r^ I r- f~ I I Is* I r--ON ON ON ON ON

t-» in o sr• • • •O O I I •-! I i-HON O\ ON ON

ON ON ON ON ON (Qs»*4o> *o

ON "l Ot ON I I ON I ON PtOO N O N O N ON ON r-l r-{ (3

O f-l *J «p4 o <d mo ° S §1-1 *u 4J ,r3

ON <3 a) s 3• •• • • T l f H t - I O

O*l C l O*4 C"4 O*l <Q C QJ CO

•K O E-i CO

•-i vo esi -*VO -* ON COII • • I I • IGO GO GO ON

CM I OJ O I I <M I <nr-i CM tn -i --4

CM »-( «-(

CO CO (0 O)•O'O'O'Otxvn m o m CTON o »*ONro to co 01 m t o t a c o n.0.0.0.0>-liHf-4r-<

OOOO OOOO«*VOOO vOOsfO— • i cvi -» oo — i n ->r oo

4CCM ION !4t4l4M »4»4}4V<

* * VO CO COCO «M COCN O O O O O O O O-*oJ tntM to 1-1 - co— i »-i o-ioo-i s»v-< I- H r ^ l l l l l l l B 0 B S B E E Sp.g.p.p. 0.0.0.0.OOOOOOoO 60«000<X>

CO»OOO Sf r^ «-l OI-) CN| t-l CN

O O O H •H-rl-rl'H

OOOO OOOO

<# ' ' ' ' I I • Ico co co oo

N•HCO

•H

Ocd

(14 fz, fx,P3 pq

fL, P-l CM P-if-| E_| £-1 £_|

APPENDIX E

CALCULATION OF FIM-DIFFUSION CONTROLLED MASS TRANSFER COEFFICIENT

flR30lf'867

SUBJECT 6? A C Hotit.!* <j _____________ SHEET NO. / OF "2-

I Connctt f iBinino*wG//«eOTS>4AO«>»A««EBS BY / 7L. DATE / «/» 4 ?/ CHOX BY _______ DATE

AC-

r*te.

o r 1$- d.

£ Gannett FlemingC3 ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS

w

o

SUBJECT_______________________________ SHEETHOl 2- OF___________________________________ JOBNOL *73?7> P d

ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS BY J*- DCTE/// </?/CHqX BY______DATE

1-9. = /.

2.a y 4

/.<> • /o'3 •"*»/< ^ u.vl

r

flR30**869

APPENDIX F

COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR THE GAC MODEL

AR3Qi*870

ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc cC This program is written for predicting the breakthrough curve of Granual cC Activated Carbon (GAG) column operation--single component model cC CC Authors: Rong-Jih Leu and Chen-yu Yen CC CC Copyright by Rong-Jin Leu, Chen-yu Yen, and Gannett Fleming, Inc (GF) . All CC rights reserved. No part of this program may be reproduced or used in any CC form without written permission from the authors or from GF. CC . CC Date of last modification: 11/26/91 CC CC Method: Lumped parameter approach is used to solve the partial differential CC equation generated by the material balance relationship for CC the GAG bed (T.M. Keinath, AIChE sym. ser., No.166, Vol.73, 1976). CC CC CC Assumptions: CC * GAG adsorption equilibria are expressed by Freundlich isotherm. CC * The adsorption rate controlling step is film diffusion. CC * Mass transfer coefficient of film diffusion is given by CC Hiester et al. (AIChE J.,2, 404, 1956). CC * Numerical integration of ordinary differential equations is CC through Euler's method. CC CC Input: CC NCOMP - 1, for the calculation of fenac CC 2, for the calculation of TOG CC * GAG bed parameter: CC • CID — column inner diameter (cm) CC SBL - static bed length (cm) ' ' CC CWT - carbon weight (g) CC VFR - volumetric flow rate (ml/min) CC VRT - void ratio CC NOE — number of elements of the bed, dimensionless CC * GAG characteristic CC CRD - carbon real density (g/c.c.) CC * Equilibria isotherm parameters CC FLK - Freundlich coefficient K, dimensionless CC FLN - Freundlich coefficient 1/n, dimensionless CC * Film diffusion parameter CC DF - diffusion coefficient of water (sq mm/s) CC DP - diameter of carbon particle size (mm) CC ADJ — adjustment number for mass transfer coeff., dimensionless CC FAP - mass transfer coefficient (I/sec) CC * Calculating parameters CC TMAX - GAG column running time (sec) CC DLT - time increment (sec) CC CINF - influent concentration (mg/L for TOG; ug/L for fenac) CC TD - time interval in printing (sec) CC CC Output: CC * GAC bed parameters CC BVL •» bed volume (c.c.) CC VOE - volume of bed element (c.c.) CC PBD - packed bed density (g/c.c.) CC CO - effluent concentration CC , . Ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

DIMENSION C(30),Q(30),DQ(30),CO(4000),PC(30),PQ(30),PDQ(30)CC OPEN AN OUTPUT DATA FILE NAMED GACOUTC AND AN INPUT DATA FILE NAMED GACINC

OPEN (4,FILE='GACOUT',STATUS-'NEW')

OPEN (3,FILE-'GACIN',STATUS-'OLD')CC CALCULATE TOG OR FENAC EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION HISTORYC NCOMP - 1 FOR FENAC; 2 FOR TOGC

READ (3,301) NCOMPWRITE (4,401) NCOMP

CC INPUT BED PARAMETERS

READ (3,302) CID, SBL, CWT, VFR, VRTWRITE (4,402) CID, SBL, CWT, VFR, VRT

CC INPUT CARBON CHARACTERISTICC

CRD - 2.3CC INPUT ISOTHERM PARAMETERSC

READ (3,303) FLK, FLNWRITE (4,403) FLK, FLN

CC INPUT NUMBER OF ELEMENTS OF THE COLUMNC

READ (3,301) NOEWRITE (4,407) NOE

CC CALCULATION OF REQUIRED PARAMETERSC

BVL - 3.14159/4. * (CID)**2 * SBLVOE - BVL/NOEPBD - CWT/BVL

CC CALCULATE FILM DIFFUSION PARAMETERSC

READ (3,304) DF, DP, ADJWRITE (4,404) DF, DP, ADJFAP - 2.62/(l.-0.4)*(l.-VRT)*(DF*VFR*10./60./(3.14159/4*CID**2))1**0.5/DP**1.5FAP - FAP*ADJ

CC TOG OR FENAC CALCULATIONC

IF (NCOMP.EQ.l) PBD - PBD*1.0E3CC INPUT INITIAL CONDITIONSC

READ (3,305) TMAX, DLT, CINFWRITE (4,405) TMAX, DLT, CINFREAD (3,306) TDWRITE (4,406) TDNTMAX - TMAX/DLT+1DO 5 N - 1, NOEC(N) - 0.0DQ(N) - 0.0Q(N) - 0.0

5 CONTINUENT - 1

CC CALCULATE C(N) AND Q(N)C10 DQ(1) - FAP*DLT*(C(1)-(Q(1)/FLK)**(1./FLN))/(PBD*(1.0E3))

C(l) - C(1)+(VFR/60.)*(CINF-C(1))*DLT/(VRT*VOE)-PBD*(1.0E3)1*DQ(1)/VRTQ(l) - Q(l) + DQ(1)DO 30 N- 2, NOEDQ(N) - FAP*DLT*(C(N)-(Q(N)/FLK)**(1./FLN))/(PBD*1.0E3)

C(N) - C(N)+(VFR/60.)*(C(N-l)-C(N))*DLT/(VRT*VOE)-(PBD*(i.OE3))1*DQ(N)/VRTQ(N) - Q(N) + DQ(N)

30 CONTINUENT - NT+1IF (DLT*(NT-l)/TD.LT.l.) GO TO 35MT - DLT*(NT-1)/TDIF (MT.NE.DLT*(NT-1.)/TD) GO TO 35CO(MT) - C(NOE)WRITE (*,210) MT, CO(MT)

35 IF (C(NOE).GE.CINF) GO TO 50IF (NT.GT.NTMAX) GO TO 50GO TO 10

50 IF (NCOMP.EQ.l) GO TO 51WRITE (4,101) CINFWRITE (4,102)GO TO 52

51 WRITE (4,201) CINFWRITE (4,202)

52 NTO - TMAX/TDDO 40 NT - 1, NTOWRITE (4,210) NT, CO(NT)

40 CONTINUE101 FORMAT (/'INFLUENT TOC(MG/L)',5X,F12.2)102 FORMAT (/' TIME(HR) TOC(MG/L)')201 FORMAT (/'INFLUENT FENAC(UG/L)',5X,F12.2)202 FORMAT (/' TIME(HR) FENAC(UG/L)')210 FORMAT (I10.E14.4)301 FORMAT (12)302 FORMAT (2F6.2,F8.4,F6.2,F5.2)303 FORMAT (2F6.3)304 FORMAT (E8.2.2F8.4)305 FORMAT (F9.0.F5.2.F8.2)306 FORMAT (F7.0)401 FORMAT (/'NCOMP-',12)402 FORMAT (/'CID-'.F6.2.2X,'SBL-',F6.2,2X, 'CWT-',F8.4,2X,

1'VFR-',F6.2,2X,'VRT-',F5.2)403 FORMAT (/'FLK-'.F6.3.2X,'FLN-',F6.3)404 FORMAT (/'DF-'.E8.2.2X,'DP-'.F8.4.2X,'ADJ-',F8.4)405 FORMAT (/'TMAX-',F9.0,2X,'DLT-',F5.2,2X,'CINF-',F8.2)406 FORMAT (/'TD-',F7.0)407 FORMAT (/'NOE-',I2)99 STOP

END

ftR3Ql*873

ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc cC This program is written for predicting the breakthrough curve of Granual CC Activated Carbon (GAG) column operation--multicomponent model CC CC Authors: Rong-Jin Leu and Chen-yu Yen CC CC Copyright by Rong-Jin Leu, Chen-yu Yen, and Gannett Fleming, Inc (GF). All CC rights reserved. No part of this program may be reproduced or used in any CC form without written permission from the authors or from GF. CC CC Date of last modification: 11/26/91 CC CC Method: Lumped parameter approach is used to solve the partial differential CC equation generated by the material balance relationship for CC the GAC bed (T.M. Keinath, AIChE sym. ser., No.166, Vol.73, 1976). CC Competitive adsorption is modeled with competitive Langmuir CC equation (Butler, J.A., and Ockrent, C.,"Studies in CC Electrocapillarity. III." Journal of Physical Chemistry, Vol. 34, CC 1930, pp. 2841-2859) CC CC Assumptions: CC * GAC adsorption equilibria are expressed by Langmuir isotherm. CC * The adsorption rate controlling step is film diffusion. CC * Mass transfer coefficient of film diffusion is given by CC Hiester et al. (AIChE J.,2, 404, 1956). CC * Numerical integration of ordinary differential equations is CC through Euler's method. CC . . CC Input: CC - NCOMP — number of component in the system CC * GAC bed parameter: CC CID — column inner diameter (cm) CC SBL - static bed length (cm) CC CWT - carbon weight (g) CC VFR - volumetric flow rate (ml/min) CC VRT - void ratio CC NOE — number of elements of the bed, dimensionless; CC * GAC characteristic CC CRD - carbon real density (g/c.c.) CC * Equilibria isotherm parameters CC B - Langmuir energy coefficient b, L/mg CC QMAX - Langmuir ultimate uptake capacity coefficient, mg/g CC * Film diffusion parameter CC DF — diffusion coefficient of water (sq mm/s) CC DP - diameter of carbon particle size (mm) CC ADJ - adjustment number for mass transfer coeff., dimensionless CC FAP - mass transfer coefficient (I/sec) CC * Calculating parameters CC TMAX - GAC column running time (sec) CC DLT - time increment (sec) CC CINF - influent concentration (mg/L) CC TD - time interval in printing (sec) CC CC Output: CC * GAC bed parameters CC BVL — bed volume (c.c.) CC VOE - volume of bed element (c.c.) CC PBD - packed bed density (g/c.c.) CC CO - effluent concentration (mg/L) CC Ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

DIMENSION C(4,30),DQ(4,30),CO(4,500),CINF(4)DIMENSION Q(4,30),B(4),QMAX(4),X(15)

CC OPEN AN OUTPUT DATA FILE NAMED GACOUT

fl'R30l*87l*

C AND AN INPUT DATA FILE NAMED GACINC

OPEN (4,FILE-'GACOUT',STATUS-'NEW')OPEN (3,FILE-'GACIN',STATUS-'OLD')

CC INPUT NUMBER OF COMPONENT IN THE SYSTEMC

READ (3,301) NCOMPWRITE (4,401) NCOMP

CC INPUT BED PARAMETERSC

READ (3,302) CID, SBL, CWT, VFR, VRTWRITE (4,402) CID, SBL, CWT, VFR, VRT

CC INPUT CARBON CHARACTERISTICC

CRD - 2.3CC INPUT LANGMUIR ISOTHERM PARAMETERSC

READ (3,303) (B(J),J-1,NCOMP), (QMAX(J),J-1,NCOMP)WRITE (4,403) (B(J),J-1,NCOMP), (QMAX(J),J-1,NCOMP)

CC INPUT NUMBER OF ELEMENTS OF THE COLUMNC

READ (3,301) NOEWRITE (4,407) NOE

CC CALCULATION OF REQUIRED PARAMETERSC

BVL - 3.14159/4. * (CID)**2 * SBLVOE - BVL/NOEPBD - CWT/BVL

CC CALCULATE FILM DIFFUSION PARAMETERSC

READ (3,304) DF, DP, ADJWRITE (4,404) DF, DP, ADJFAP - 2.62/(l.-0.4)*(l.-VRT)*(DF*VFR*10./60./(3.14159/4*CID**2))1**0.5/DP**1.5FAP - FAP*ADJ

CC INPUT INITIAL CONDITIONSC

READ (3,305) TMAX, DLT, TD.WRITE (4,405) TMAX, DLT, TDREAD (3,306) (CINF(J),J-1,NCOMP)WRITE (4,406) (CINF(J),J-1,NCOMP)CINF(NCOMP+1) - 0DO 51 J - 1, NCOMP

51 CINF(NCOMP+1) - CINF(NCOMP+1)+CINF(J)NTMAX - TMAX/DLT+1DO 5 N - 1, NOEDO 5 J - 1, NCOMPC(J,N) - 0.0DQ(J.N) - 0.0Q(J,N) - 0.0

5 CONTINUENT - 1

CC CALCULATE C(J,N) AND Q(J,N)C10 MN - 1

CALL GAUSS (Q.B.QMAX,NCOMP,X,MN)DO 29 J-l,NCOMP

DQ(J,1) - FAP*DLT*(C(J,1)-X(J))/(PBD*1.0E3)C(J,1) - C(J,1)+(VFR/60.)*(CINF(J)-C(J,1))*DLT/(VRT*VOE)1-(PBD*1.OE3)*DQ(J,1)/VRTQ(J,1) - Q(J,1) + DQ(J,1)

29 CONTINUEDO 30 N- 2, NOEMN - N .CALL GAUSS (Q,B,QMAX,NCOMP,X,MN)DO 30 J-l,NCOMPDQ(J,N) - FAP*DLT*(C(J,N)-X(J))/(PBD*1.0E3)C(J,N) - C(J,N)+(VFR/60.)*(C(J,N-1)-C(J,N))*DLT/(VRT*VOE)1-(PBD*1.OE3)*DQ(J,N)/VRTQ(J,N) - Q(J,N) + DQ(J,N)

30 CONTINUENT - NT+1IF (DLT*(NT-l)/TD.LT.l.) GO TO 35MT - DLT*(NT-1)/TDIF (MT.NE.DLT*(NT-1.)/TD) GO TO 35CO(NCOMP+1,MT) - 0DO 31 J - 1, NCOMPCO(J,MT) - C(J,NOE)CO(NCOMP+1,MT) - CO(NCOMP+1,MT) -f CO(J,MT)

31 CONTINUEWRITE (*,210) MT, CO(1,MT), CO(NCOMP+1,MT)

CC PRINT THE CALCULATION RESULTSC

35 DO 32 J - 1, NCOMPIF (C(J,NOE).GE.(CINF(NCOMP+1)*0.99)) GO TO 50

32 CONTINUEIF (NT.LT.NTMAX) GO TO 10

50 WRITE (4,101) (CINF(J),J-1,NCOMP+1)WRITE (4,102)NTO - TMAX/TDDO 40 NT - 1, NTOWRITE (4,103) NT, (CO(J.NT),J-l.NCOMP+1)

40 CONTINUE101 FORMAT (/'INFLUENT (MG/L)'.5X.4F12.3)102 FORMAT (/' TIME(HR) TOC1(MG/L) TOC2(MG/L) TOC3(MG/L)

1 TOG(MG/L)')103 FORMAT (I10.4E14.4)210 FORMAT (I10.2E14.4)301 FORMAT (12)302 FORMAT (2F8.2,F15.4,F12.2,F5.2)303 FORMAT (6F10.4)304 FORMAT (E8.2.2F8.4)305 FORMAT (F9.0,F5.2,F7.0)306 FORMAT (3F8.3)401 FORMAT (/'NCOMP-',12)402 FORMAT (/'CID-',F8.2,2X,'SBL-',F8.2,2X,'CWT-',F15.4,2X,'VFR-'

1,F12.2,2X,'VRT-', F5.2)403 FORMAT (/'B -',3F10.4,2X,'QMAX -'.3F10.4)404 FORMAT (/'DF-',E8.2,2X,'DP-'.F8.4.2X,'ADJ-',F8.4)405 FORMAT (/'TMAX-'.F9.0.2X,'DLT-'.F5.2.2X,'TD-',F7.0)406 FORMAT (/'CINF -'.3F8.3)407 FORMAT (/'NOE-',12)99 STOP

ENDC

SUBROUTINE GAUSS(Ql,Bl,QMAX1,NCOMPl,XI,MNl)DIMENSION Q1(4,30),B1(4),QMAX1(4),X1(15)

CC SOLUTION OF SIMULTANEOUS EQUATIONS BY GUASSIAN ELIMINATIONC

DIMENSION A(15,16)N - NCOMPl

flR3Ql*876

M - N + 1L - N - 1

CC . INPUT ELEMENT OF AUGMENTED MATRIXC

DO 27 I - 1, NDO 28 J - 1, NIF (I.NE.J) GO TO 29A(I,J) - Q1(I,MN1)*B1(I) - QMAX1(I)*B1(I)GO TO 28

29 A(I,J) - Q1(I,MN1)*B1(J)28 CONTINUE

A(I,M) - -Ql(I.MNl)27 CONTINUE

DO 12 K - 1, LJJ - KBIG - ABS(A(K,K))KP1 - K+l

CC SEARCH FOR LARGEST POSSIBLE PIVOT ELEMENT

DO 7 I - KP1.NAB - ABS(A(I,K))IF(BIG-AB) 6,7,7

6 BIG - ABJJ - I

7 CONTINUECC DECISION ON NECESSITY OF ROW INTERCHANGE

IF(JJ-K) 8,10,8CC ROW INTERCHANGE

8 DO 9 J - K,MTEMP - A(JJ,J)A(JJ,J) - A(K,J)

9 A(K,J) - TEMPCC CALCULATION OF NEW ELEMENTS OF NEW MATRIX

10 DO 11 I - KP1.NQUOT - A(I,K)/A(K,K)DO 11 J - KP1,M

11 A(I,J) - A(I,J)-QUOT*A(K,J)DO 12 I - KP1,N

12 A(I,K) - 0.CC FIRST STEP IN BACK SUBSTITUTION

X1(N) - A(N,M)/A(N,N)CC REMAINDER OF BACK-SUBSTITUTION PROCESS

DO 14 NN - 1, LSUM - 0.I - N - NNIP1 - 1+1DO 13 J - IP1,N

13 SUM - SUM -f A(I,J)*X1(J)14 X1(I) - (A(I,M)-SUM)/A(I,I)

RETURNEND

APPENDIX G

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT

flR3'Ol*878

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT

Item Comment/Response

1 Comment: Filtration—since the vacuum filtration did not significantlyremove any solids, discuss if there are possible adverseeffects to the other processes, Le., GAC.

Response: Although filtration did not significantly remove solids in thetreatability treatment train, it can be used as a polishingstep prior to the GAC process to prevent the GAC bedfrom dogging in the long run. A sand filter, therefore, wasrecommended in the proposed treatment train, as shown inFigure 2-1 of the final report.

2 Comment: Since the iron precipitate from the treatabilitty testing wasfiltered with a .45 pg filter, the precipitate from the ironremoval process should be designed with a filtering system.If not, discuss why it was necessary to filter the precipitatein the treatability testing but not in the actual system.

Response: For the treatability testing of iron removal process, thefilter was to separate dissolved iron from precipitated ironfor the study of iron oxidation kinetics. In the actualsystem, this separation was performed by a clarifier asshown in Figure 2-1 of the final report.

3 Comment: Paragraph 2.13, discuss if an actual activated sludgetreatability study needs to be performed. If moretreatability studies need to be performed, this should bestated in stronger language. Additionally, the final reportshould include this information.

Response: An actual activated sludge treatability study had beenconducted from April 1992 to June 1992. The treatabilitytesting report was'included in Chapter 5 of the final report.

4 Comment: Though the BAC process does not show better removalefficiencies for the organic constituents, there is the otherquestion about carbon regeneration. Does the carbon inthe BAC unit last longer than the carbon in the GAC? Isit more cost efficient to use BAC?

Response: In the treatability testing, the operation duration was muchshorter for GAC (10 days) than for BAC (58 days). Ifcompared for the first 10 days of operation, the effluentTOC and Fenac* concentration were lower in the BACthan the GAC. Bioactivity did occur in the BAG, however,

B CAWPS1\IOB27337\TREATABI\APPO.TS 8*92 3:01 2

Item Comment/Response

the effluent TOC and Fenac* concentrations in the BAGdid not show the tendency of dropping during the 58 daysof operation, as shown in Figures 7-2 and 7-3. It will becost effective to use BAG if the effluent concentrationdrops to below the regulatory concentration.

Comment: Provide a schematic of the final treatment scheme. If BAGis used in the treatment stream, identify what processeswould be replaced with BAG. If BAG is not used in thetreatment process, identify which process would replaceBAG. Do the same for AS.

Response: The proposed treatment train was presented in Figure 2-1of the final report. In the treatment train, GAG was usedto replace BAG in the treatment process. Since theactivated sludge treatability testing did not offer furtherpromising results, the activated sludge process was notincluded in the proposed treatment train.

B C\WP51\JOB27337\TREATABI\APPO.TS MS/92 3.-01 3