OIL/WATER SEPARATOR 64Z PILOT STUDY REPORT (09/29/2010 ...

Transmitted via Overnight Courier

September 29, 2010

Mr. Roger A. Janson, Director Water Quality Management Unit USEP A, Region I 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 Boston, MA 02109-3912

Water Enforcement OES4-SMR U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 Boston, MA 02109-3912

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Western Regional Office - Bureau of Resource Protection 436 Dwight Street Springfield, MA 01103

Re: General Electric Company - Pittsfield, Massachusetts NPDES Permit No. MA0003891

GE 159 Plastics Avenue Pittsfield, MA 01201 USA

Attachment C - Best Management Practices Plan, BMP A.2.B

Dear Mr. Janson and et al.:

General Electric Company (GE) submits the attached Oil/Water Separator (OWS) 64Z Pilot Study Report in satisfaction of Attachment C - Best Management Practices Plan, BMP A.2.B, of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. MA0003891, as it relates to conducting a pilot study atOWS 64Z.

Sincerely,

ft11 lAaal f

Michael T. Carroll Manager of Pittsfield Remediation Programs

Enclosure: Oil/Water Separator 64Z Pilot Study Report

Corporate EnVironmental Programs

cc: T. Conway, EPA (cover letter only) B. Pitt, EPA D. Tagliaferro, EPA M. Gorski, MDEP (cover letter only) D. Howland, MDEP P. Hogan, MDEP A. Silfer, GE (cover letter only) R. McLaren, GE (cover letter only) J. Levesque, GE K. Mooney, GE (cover letter only) B. Smith, Hunton & Williams S. Gutter, Sidley Austin (cover letter only) J. Nuss, ARCADIS M. Higgins, ARCADIS P. Filippetti, ARCADIS

Mr. Roger A. Janson and et al. September 29, 2010

Page2of2

General Electric Company Pittsfield, Massachusetts

Oil/Water Separator 64Z Pilot Study Report

September 2010

Oil/Water Separator 64Z Pilot Study Report

Prepared for:

General Electric Company Pittsfield, Massachusetts

Prepared by:

ARCADIS of New York, Inc. 6723 Towpath Road P.O. Box 66 Syracuse New York 13214-0066 Tel 315.446.9120 Fax 315.449.0017

Our Ref.:

B0030124.0001

Date:

September 2010

i

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Oil/Water Separator 64Z Description and Operations 1

1.1.1 Description 1

1.1.2 Background 2

1.2 Report Organization 3

2. OWS 64Z Pilot Study Activities 5

2.1 OWS 64Z Baseline Effectiveness Sampling 5

2.2 Suspended Solids Characterization 6

2.2.1 Particle Distribution Analysis 6

2.2.2 Jar-Test Studies 7

2.3 Flow Monitoring Activities 7

3. Results 8

3.1 Baseline Effectiveness Results 8

3.2 Suspended Solids Characterization Analysis Results 8

3.2.1 Jar-Test Results 8

3.2.2 Particle Size Distribution Results 9

3.3 Flow Monitoring Results 9

4. Evaluation of Available Pre-Treatment Technologies 11

4.1 Filtering Treatment Technologies 11

4.1.1 Installation of Geocomposite Filter Panels within Separator 11

4.1.2 Installation of Inclined Plate Clarifiers within Separator 12

4.2 Velocity Reduction Practices 12

4.2.1 Installation of Artificial Turf on Floor of Separator 12

4.2.2 Installation of Baffles within Separator 13

5. Conclusion 14

6. References 15

ii

Table of Contents

Tables

1 Baseline Effectiveness Sampling Analytical Results

2 Baseline Effectiveness Sampling Flow Volumes and Rainfall Levels

3 TSS Jar-Test Study Control Sample Analytical Results

4 Velocity Profile Measurements (May 2010)

5 Velocity Profile Measurements (June 2010)

6 Particle Size Distribution (May 2010)

7 Particle Size Distribution (August 2010)

Figures

1 Figure 1 – Storm Sewer Piping Connected to Oil/Water Separator 64Z

2 Figure 2 - Oil/Water Separator 64Z Profile

Appendix

A Adirondack Environmental Services, Inc. Analytical Data Packages

B Jar-Test Studies - Photos and Field Logs

1

Oil/Water Separator 64Z Pilot Study Report General Electric Company Pittsfield, Massachusetts

1. Introduction

On September 30, 2008, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No. MA0003891 to General Electric Company (GE) related to its Pittsfield, Massachusetts facility (Facility). Subsequent to public review and comment, the USEPA issued a Permit Modification (Permit) in July 2009 that took effect on October 1, 2009. Attachment C of the Permit includes a series of activities/modifications, known as best management practices (BMPs), to be performed by GE to facilitate compliance with the overall objectives of the Permit. Specifically, subsection BMP A.2.B of Attachment C requires GE to conduct a pilot study at an existing oil/water separator (OWS) 64Z to “evaluate the potential for increased solids removal” from stormwater flow through the OWS. The following summarizes the activities conducted by GE between March 2010 and September 2010 to address the requirements pertaining to the OWS 64Z pilot study:

1. Collection of influent and effluent analytical data at OWS 64Z to determine the “pre-pilot study” or “baseline” PCB and TSS characteristics of flows within the OWS.

2. Performance of influent and effluent sampling to characterize the suspended solids (e.g., size, quantity) and effectiveness of OWS 64Z in removing solids.

3. Collection of OWS flow information (e.g., velocity measurements, total volume) to determine flow conditions within the separator during various storm events.

4. Evaluation of potential modifications to OWS 64Z to increase the effectiveness of the OWS in removing solids.

This Oil/Water Separator 64Z Pilot Study Report (report) present the results of the OWS 64Z pilot study implemented in 2010, and the conclusions and recommendations gathered based on the results.

1.1 Oil/Water Separator 64Z Description and Operations

1.1.1 Description

OWS 64Z was constructed in 1978 and is located on the south side of East Street, directly east of the 64T Water Treatment Facility (WTF) (Figure 1) in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. The OWS was originally constructed to remove oils, debris, and suspended solids from the Facility’s stormwater and process water prior to discharge to the Housatonic River. Currently, OWS 64Z is utilized to manage stormwater.

2


OWS 64Z consists of an influent building, which contains an influent chamber, trash rack, drum screen, gate valves that directs the incoming flow into two separate settling bays, and a set of baffles. OWS 64Z’s in-ground settling bays are approximately 20 feet wide, 64 feet long, and 5 feet deep, with an approximate 48,000-gallon (6,420 cubic feet) capacity. OWS 64Z was originally constructed with an underflow orientation. In 2006, an overflow weir was installed near the effluent end of each bay to increase the storage capacity and sedimentation capabilities of the OWS. The settling bays are divided by a concrete wall and each contains an overflow weir near the effluent end of each bay. Flow exiting the settling bays passes over an overflow weir, then under an underflow weir, prior to flowing over a second overflow weir and discharging through the effluent pipe. Effluent from OWS 64Z (up to 380 gallons per minute [gpm]) flows into the 64T WTF. Flows greater than 380 gpm discharge to the influent of oil/water separator 64W (OWS 64W). In the event of large storm flows in excess of approximately 2,300 gpm will bypass OWS 64Z to the influent of OWS 64W. Refer to Figure 2 (attached) for a schematic of OWS 64Z.

1.1.2 Background

Stormwater flow conveyed to OWS 64Z is primarily collected in GE-owned storm sewer systems located north of East Street. In addition, a small portion of City of Pittsfield owned storm sewer piping along East Street and along Tyler Street (located immediately north of the Facility) also drain to OWS 64Z. Refer to Figure 1 for the location of the storm sewer piping that drains to OWS 64Z.

The OWSs located within the GE plant site are periodically cleaned out, removing any sediment and debris that might have accumulated since the previous cleaning. In accordance with Attachment C (BMP A.1.B) of the Permit, OWS 64Z was last cleaned out in August 2009 and 12 cubic yards of material that had accumulated since the prior cleaning in 2006 were removed. In July 2010, sediment thickness measurements were collected at OWS 64Z during annual OWS inspections. The sediment thickness within the OWS 64Z ranged from 0 to 0.05 feet, with an average depth of 0.025 feet. Sediment thickness measurements were also collected in 2006 and in 2009, prior to cleaning OWS 64Z. In 2006, the sediment thickness within the separator ranged from 0.2 to 0.5 feet, with an average thickness of 0.28 feet. Additionally, the sediment thickness in OWS 64Z in 2009 ranged from 0.1 to 0.3 feet, with an average thickness of 0.16 feet. The Permit calls for an OWS to be cleaned every 2 years (or sooner if the average thickness of debris observed during annual inspections exceeds 6 inches). Given the small amount of sediment found in OWS 64Z in 2010 inspection, the next cleaning will be performed at the regularly scheduled clean out in 2011.

3


GE has also implemented an extensive BMP program within the Facility area to collect and remove sediments and other debris before it ever reaches the OWS. BMPs include, but are not limited to, the following activities:

• In 2009, a total of 174 GE-owned storm sewer manholes and catch basins were vacuumed to remove any accumulated sediment and/or debris. Select manholes and catch basins are routinely inspected and subsequent sediment/debris removal will be performed as needed.

• Also in 2009, select storm sewer piping was cleaned by hydraulic pressure washing and subsequently video-inspected to confirm sufficient removal of accumulated sediments and debris. Refer to Figure 1 showing the cleaned piping, which drains to OWS 64Z.

• Regular sweeping of impervious areas of the GE plant site with a GE-owned vacuum truck.

• Quarterly inspections of the GE plant site to identify potential sources of sediment/debris that may enter the storm water system.

• Quarterly inspections of stormwater management control devices.

As illustrated by the decrease in the sediment thickness measurements collected between 2006 and 2010, the BMP activities implemented within the Facility have had a positive impact on decreasing the sediment and debris entering into storm sewer piping connected to OWS 64Z, and the separator itself.

Refer to GE’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (ARCADIS, 2009) for additional information pertaining to the BMPs implemented at the Facility.

1.2 Report Organization

The remaining portions of this report have been organized into the following sections:

• Section 2 – OWS 64Z Pilot Study Activities: This section identifies the specific sampling activities, sampling procedures/protocols, and monitoring conducted during the performance of the OWS 64Z pilot study.

• Section 3 – Results: This section summarizes and evaluates the analytical sample results collected during the performance of the OWS 64Z pilot study.

4


• Section 4 – Evaluation of Available Pre-Treatment Technologies: This section discusses the pre-treatment technologies that were evaluated to assess the potential to remove additional solids from OWS 64Z stormwater flows.

• Section 5 – Conclusion: This section provides a summary of pilot study objectives and results.

• Section 6 – References: This section lists the sources of information cited throughout this report.

5


2. OWS 64Z Pilot Study Activities

The primary objectives of the OWS 64Z pilot study were to evaluate the current effectiveness of OWS 64Z to remove solids from stormwater flow, and to identify possible enhancements to further increase the effectiveness of the OWS. To achieve these objectives, sampling/monitoring activities were performed during periods of elevated flow (e.g., wet weather events) to gain an understanding of the:

• Baseline effectiveness of the OWS;

• Characteristics of the solids suspended in stormwater; and

• Flow characteristics of the OWS.

The OWS 64Z pilot study activities also included identification and evaluation of industry standard suspended solids removal practices. The results of the sampling/monitoring activities were used to evaluate possible solids removal technologies that could potentially increase solids removal capabilities within the OWS.

2.1 OWS 64Z Baseline Effectiveness Sampling

In accordance with Attachment C, Subsection BMP A.2.A of the Permit, GE conducted sampling and analysis of OWS 64Z influent and effluent flow for total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and total suspended solids (TSS) during three separate storm events. The purpose of the sampling and analysis activities were to assess the baseline effectiveness of OWS 64Z in reducing PCB and TSS levels in the flow, and provide an initial assessment of the quantity and attributes of suspended sediments within the separator.

A 24-hour preceding dry weather period, as defined in the Permit, was confirmed prior to initiating sample activities. On March 13, March 23, and June 2, 2010, influent and effluent samples from the stormwater flow through OWS 64Z were collected. The samples were collected as 24-hour, storm duration flow-weighted composite samples (3-hour durations) and were analyzed for PCBs and TSS. Influent sample collection activities were initiated once significant flow (i.e., measureable flow) was observed entering the OWS. When incoming flow to the OWS had reached 75 percent of the total flow capacity of the separator, effluent sample collection activities were initiated to ensure the effluent sample was capturing storm flow. In addition, the total volume of flow through the OWS was recorded for each storm event. The PCB and TSS influent and effluent sample results are summarized in Table 1 of this report.

6


The OWS baseline effectiveness sampling results are representative of three distinct wet weather storm events at the Facility. As depicted in Table 1, the total volume of flow through OWS 64Z for the March 13, March 23, and June 2 storm events was approximately 661,000, 336,000, and 215,000 gallons, respectively, and are indicative of the various storm intensities typically observed at the Facility.

The following sections describe further analysis of the OWS 64Z baseline effectiveness sampling.

2.2 Suspended Solids Characterization

In addition to the “baseline” sampling activities, samples were collected to further characterize the nature of the suspended solids in the OWS 64Z stormwater flow. Specifically, the sampling focused on particle size distribution and settling characteristics of the particles. On May 18, 2010, the first of two samples were collected and analyzed using microscopy test method, American Society for Testing of Materials F-312 (Standard Test Methods for Microscopical Sizing and Counting Particles from Aerospace Fluids on Membrane Filters) and were subject to on-site jar-test studies, as described below. A subsequent sample was collected on August 16, 2010 for similar analysis.

2.2.1 Particle Distribution Analysis

During the two sampling events described above, influent and effluent stormwater samples were collected from OWS 64Z and were subsequently sent to Adirondack Environmental Services, Inc. (Adirondack) for particle size distribution analysis. The influent and effluent samples were each filtered through a 0.4 micron pore size polycarbonate filter. The dried filters were then analyzed using the scanning electron microscopy (SEM) technique, where backscattered electron imaging was used to determine the distribution and size of the residual particulate material on each filter. To aid in the determination of the particle sizes, an EVEX digital beam interface unit was utilized.

The SEM analysis of the influent and effluent samples concluded that:

• The primary particulate size for all samples ranged from 1 to 5 microns.

• The particulate material consisted of individual particles and particle agglomerates of inorganics solids.

• The concentration of total suspended particles in the influent sample are approximately double that of the concentration in the effluent sample.

7


A comprehensive summary of the particle distribution results are included in Tables 6 and 7; and the analytical data package from Adirondack is included in Appendix A. A detailed discussion, evaluation, and conclusion of the particle size distribution results are included in Sections 3, 4, and 5, respectively, of this report.

2.2.2 Jar-Test Studies

Jar-test sampling activities consisted of collecting 1 liter samples from the influent and effluent flow of the separator using clear glass jars. The clear glass jars were then subject to visual observation to document the gravity-settling capabilities of the suspended solids within the influent and effluent samples. The visual observations were performed at pre-determined time intervals; which included every 5 minutes for the first 30 minutes, and every half-hour for the following 2 hours. Observations were documented by photographs, which have been included in Appendix B. Visual observations, recorded in field logs, are also included in Appendix B. If a visible interface (i.e., line) between the water and sediment developed during the observations, water/sediment interface measurements were collected. Jar samples were placed side-by-side to assist in the recognition of interface development.

Pre-test influent and effluent samples were submitted for TSS analysis to establish control samples for subsequent comparison of supernatant TSS analyses (if observed). The pre-test samples were sent to Columbia Analytical Services, Inc. (CAS) for TSS analysis using method SM 2540D. However, neither the influent nor effluent samples developed a sediment layer at the bottom of the jars. Therefore, TSS samples of influent and effluent supernatants were not collected.

2.3 Flow Monitoring Activities

Velocity and total flow measurements were collected in the OWS to better understand the flow dynamics through the separator and provide information on potential usefulness of additional velocity dissipating devices (e.g., baffles). Velocity profile measurements were collected from three transects across the OWS 64Z settling bays. At each transect location, measurements were collected from three locations across the width of the OWS settling bay and at three depth increments (i.e., 20 percent, 50 percent, and 80 percent of the vertical water column). Velocity measurements were collected every hour throughout the wet weather sampling event to represent various OWS flow rate conditions. Total flow measurements were recorded by a flow meter located at the influent of the OWS.

8


3. Results

3.1 Baseline Effectiveness Results

The composite samples of influent and effluent OWS flow collected on March 13, March 23, and June 2, 2010 were submitted to SGS Environmental Services, Inc. (SGS) for PCB analysis using modified method 8082, and to CAS for TSS analysis using method SM 2540 D. The sampling results are included in Table 1. The TSS sample results from the three sampling events indicated a 21 percent average decrease in the TSS concentrations between the influent and effluent flows through OWS 64Z. PCB results did not demonstrate a specific trend. Flow volumes and rainfall levels were recorded on the March 13, March 23, and June 2 sampling events and are included in Table 2.

3.2 Suspended Solids Characterization Analysis Results

The following sections present the results of the suspended solids characterization analyses, which included the observation of stormwater samples (i.e., jar-tests), particle size distribution tests, and TSS analysis.

3.2.1 Jar-Test Results

Field observations and photos from the jar-test samples are included in Appendix B. During initial observation of the samples collected on May 18, 2010, the influent samples contained a cloudy appearance with a few particles observed on the bottom of the jar. Toward the completion of the jar-test observations, the fine particles in the influent sample had settled out and formed a visually observed opaque layer on the bottom of the jar. Initial effluent samples were observed to be slightly cloudy, with enough transparency to see through the sample, throughout the observation time. No particles settled from the effluent sample.

Jar-test control samples submitted to CAS for TSS analysis on May 18, 2010 contained a TSS concentration at the influent of 48.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L), and contained a TSS concentration at the effluent of 15.2 mg/L. These results indicate a 68 percent decrease in the TSS concentration within the flow through OWS 64Z. Results of this sampling are provided in Table 3.

During initial observation of the samples collected on August 16, 2010, the influent samples contained a cloudy appearance with a few particles observed on the bottom of the jar. Toward the completion of the jar-test observations, the fine particles in the influent sample had settled out and formed a visually observed opaque layer on the bottom of the jar. Initial effluent samples were observed to be slightly cloudy, with enough transparency to see through the sample throughout the observation time. No particles settled from the effluent sample.

9


Jar-test control samples submitted to CAS for TSS analysis on August 16, 2010 contained a TSS concentration at the influent of 343 mg/L, and contained a TSS concentration at the effluent of 139 mg/L. These results indicate an approximate 40 percent decrease in the TSS concentration within the flow through OWS 64Z. Results of this sampling are provided in Table 3.

3.2.2 Particle Size Distribution Results

The results of the particle distribution analysis from samples collected on May 18, 2010 indicated that approximately 66 percent of the influent particulate materials have a diameter between 1 and 5 microns, and 17 percent of the influent particulate materials have a diameter between 5 and 15 microns. The effluent particle size distribution shows that approximately 67 percent of the particulate materials have a diameter between 1 and 5 microns, and 18 percent of the particulate materials have a diameter between 5 and 15 microns. The analyses found the concentration of particulates in the separator influent to be 48 million particles per liter, and found the concentration of particulates in the effluent to be 27 million particles per liter. The results of the particle size distribution tests are included in Table 6.

The results of the particle distribution analysis from samples collected on August 16, 2010 indicated that approximately 75 percent of the influent particulate materials have a diameter between 1 and 5 microns, and 19 percent of the influent particulate materials have a diameter between 5 and 15 microns. The effluent particle size distribution shows that approximately 82 percent of the particulate materials have a diameter between 1 and 5 microns, and 15 percent of the particulate materials have a diameter between 5 and 15 microns. The analyses found the concentration of particulates in the influent to the separator to be 3,950 million particles per liter, and found the concentration of particulates in the effluent to be 1,692 million particles per liter. The results of the particle size distribution tests are included in Table 7.

3.3 Flow Monitoring Results

As discussed above, velocity measurements were collected at three transect locations, and at three depth increments at each transect location (i.e., 20 percent, 50 percent, and 80 percent) during the May 18, 2010 sampling event. The average velocity of the flow through the separator was 0.012 feet per second (ft/s). May 18, 2010 velocity profile measurements are included in Table 4. The highest velocities were measured at the largest depth in the vertical water column (i.e., 80 percent of the water column). However, a majority of the velocities measured at the three transect locations indicate no measurable velocity at various depth increments.

10


Velocity measurements were also collected during a subsequent sampling event on June 9, 2010. The average velocity of the flow through the separator was 0.013 ft/s. June 9, 2010 velocity profile measurements are included in Table 5.

11


4. Evaluation of Available Pre-Treatment Technologies

Subsequent to the assessment activities previously described, the results were evaluated to determine the potential application of several possible technologies to further increase the solids removal capabilities within the OWS. Available treatment practices, which could be installed with the separator (i.e., without significant reconstruction), were evaluated for potential solids removal capabilities.

Available treatment technologies were separated into two categories: (1) filtering technologies; and (2) velocity reduction technologies. Filtering technologies included the installation of geocomposite filter panels and/or inclined plate clarifiers. Velocity reduction technologies included roughening of the settling bay floor surface (via installation of grass matting) and the installation of concrete baffle walls.

Available treatment technologies that would increase the storage volume within the OWS, directly increasing the detention time within the separator, were briefly considered. However, these technologies were eliminated from the list of potential treatment practices due to the small volume of the separator versus the large volume of stormwater runoff flowing into the OWS at any one time. In addition, increasing the water surface elevation within the separator was eliminated from the list of possible technologies, as the storage volume of the separator has already reached the near-full capacity following the installation of the stop-log weirs within the settling bays in 2009. Furthermore, any additional increase in the water surface within the separator may cause flow to back-up into the upgradient piping, including piping that drains from the publically-used East Street.

4.1 Filtering Treatment Technologies

As indicated above, the two filtering treatment technologies evaluated to further increase the solids removal capabilities of the OWS were geocomposite filter panels and inclined plate clarifiers. A review of these technologies and their solids removal potential based on the analytical/monitoring data collected in conjunction with this study has been provided below.

4.1.1 Installation of Geocomposite Filter Panels within Separator

The addition of geocomposite filter panels within the OWS water column chamber was reviewed to determine whether this type of technology would potentially increase the solids removal capabilities of OWS 64Z. Geocomposite filter panels consist of a geotextile held-in place, perpendicular to the flow, on a frame. Geocomposite filter panels would be installed across the OWS channel in a manner that would require all stormwater to pass through these filters prior to reaching the OWS effluent location. In general, filter panel material reviewed for this application would need to meet two general criteria. First, the permeability

12


of the filter material would need to be large enough such that an adequate volume of water would be allowed to pass through the OWS, and flows through the OWS would not be impeded under wet weather conditions. Second, the filter material would need to collect solid particles of the size range typically observed during wet weather flow conditions.

As previously described, the particle size of solids under wet weather flow conditions were very small ranging from 1 to 15 microns. A review of available geotextile materials, with permeabilities that would allow for adequate flows to pass through the separator, would not collect particles smaller than the 170 micron range. Given the small particle size observed during the two wet weather sample events performed, the addition of geocomposite materials would not significantly increase solids removal in OWS 64Z effluent.

4.1.2 Installation of Inclined Plate Clarifiers within Separator

Inclined plate clarifiers were also reviewed to determine their potential to remove additional solids from OWS 64Z stormwater flows. Under this alternative, inclined plate clarifiers would be installed within the OWS settling bays prior to exiting the separator via the effluent pipe. A review of the OWS configuration by a company specializing in inclined plate clarifiers determined that the addition of two units per settling bay could potentially be effective in removing additional suspended particles. However, the inclined plate clarifiers are designed to remove particle sizes down to 13 microns, under the best possible conditions. Similar to the discussion presented above, given the particle size observed during wet weather events (i.e., 1 to 15 microns), inclined plate clarifiers would not significantly increase the solids removal capabilities within OWS 64Z.

4.2 Velocity Reduction Practices

Velocity reduction practices such as installation of artificial turf and baffle walls within the OWS bays was evaluated to assess the potential of these two technologies to further increase the solids removal capabilities of the OWS. A review of these technologies and their potential to further increase the solids settling capability of OWS 64Z base on velocity measurement taken with the OWS bays are presented below.

4.2.1 Installation of Artificial Turf on Floor of Separator

The installation of grass matting on the floor of the OWS settling bays was evaluated to determine whether this technology would appreciably reduce the velocity (i.e., by increasing the roughness of the concrete floor) and trap sediment in the lower half of the water column, thereby increasing the solids removal capabilities of the OWS 64Z.

13


As described above, the velocities recorded within the OWS settling bays during wet weather storm events were on average 0.012 ft/s. Furthermore, velocity measurements did not show any substantial deviation with regards to location within the OWS (i.e., cross-sectional location within the water column, or transect locations along the length of the OWS). The relatively slow and uniform flow of water through the OWS channel indicates that the addition of grass matting to the floor of the separator would not have a significant effect on the solids removal capabilities of the OWS.

4.2.2 Installation of Baffles within Separator

The installation of baffle walls within OWS 64Z was reviewed to determine whether channeling the water could potentially slow water flow and increase solids removal during storm events. Baffle walls would be installed on alternating sides or across the entire width of the OWS channel to increase the distance that flow would have to travel through the separator.

Velocities within the OWS (i.e., 0.012 ft/s) were generally consistent throughout the chamber and extremely low. Installation of baffle walls would occupy a certain amount of the storage volume within the separator and may actually increase: (1) the scour potential by increasing the velocity around the baffle wall as flow is pushed through a smaller cross-sectional area; and/or (2) the water surface in the separator. As the water surface elevation in the separator increases, overflow of the settling bay divider wall would occur (somewhat mixing the two channels), and flow would be forced out the effluent due to the increased head on the pipe.

Velocity measurements collected would indicate that the addition of structures within the OWS, while increasing the distance water travels within the channel, may also increase flow velocities around the walls or increase the overall discharge rate from the separator. Therefore, installation of baffles within the separator would not increase the solids removal capabilities of the OWS.

14


5. Conclusion

As stated in Attachment C, BMP A.2.B, the overall goal of this report was to identify possible enhancements to further increase the effectiveness of OWS 64Z in removing solids from stormwater flows. To this end, the OWS 64Z pilot study sought to assess current stormwater flows and suspended solids characteristics within OWS 64Z, and evaluate possible treatment technologies that would potentially increase solids removal by modifying the current configuration of OWS 64Z.

The current configuration of OWS 64Z is efficient in removing solids within the OWS 64Z, as demonstrated by the baseline and pilot study sampling activities. A review of the data results collected during the baseline and pilot study sampling events indicated that OWS 64Z is notably effective at decreasing the level of solids within stormwater flow. TSS sample results from the three baseline sampling events indicated a 21 percent average decrease in the concentrations between influent and effluent flows through OWS 64Z across the duration of the storm event. Grab sample results, collected during pilot study-related activities, indicated a 64 percent average decrease in the TSS concentration within the flow through OWS 64Z.

Additionally, the baseline and the pilot study sample results indicated that approximately 85 percent of the particles discharging from OWS 64Z are between the 1 and 15 microns in diameter. These results indicated that the addition of solids removal technologies, such as geocomposite filters or inclined plate clarifiers, would not be effective in significantly decreasing the amount of solids discharging from OWS 64Z. Furthermore, jar-test monitoring activities indicated that a reasonable increase in the settling time within the separator would not significantly increase the solids removal capabilities of OWS 64Z, as a water/particle interface was not visible in the effluent samples. Finally, velocity measurement indicated that flow throughout the OWS 64Z settling bays is currently extremely low, and that the addition of baffle walls and/or grass matting would not significantly increase the solids removal capabilities of OWS 64Z.

15


6. References

ARCADIS. June 2009. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.

United States. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Method 8082A Polychlorinated biphenyls by Gas Chromatography. Web. February.

http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/testmethods/sw846/pdfs/8082a.pdf .

United States. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Office of Water. Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Point Source Category. By Tracy Mehan, Geoffrey H. Grubbs, Sheila E. Frace, Marvin Rubin, Shari Z. Barash, Jan S. Matuszko, and Carey A. Johnston. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Web. http://www.epa.gov/guide/mpm/tdd/tddfinal.pdf.

Tables

PCB (µg/L)

TSS (mg/L)

OWS 64Z Influent 3/13/2010 24 hours 0.0025 27.9

OWS 64Z Effluent 3/13/2010 24 hours 0.0017 23.4

OWS 64Z Influent 3/22/2010 24 hours 0.0012 26.6

OWS 64Z Effluent 3/23/2010 24 hours 0.0012 19.9

OWS 64Z Influent 6/2/2010 24 hours 1.69 32

OWS 64Z Effluent 6/2/2010 24 hours 2.68 25

Note:

Approximate Total Event Flow

Volume (gallons)

1. Samples were collected by ARCADIS and submitted to Columbia Analytical Services, Inc. and SGS Environmental Services, Inc. for analysis of TSS and PCBs, respectively.

TABLE 1BASELINE EFFECTIVENESS SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS

OIL/WATER SEPARATOR (OWS) 64Z PILOT STUDY REPORTGENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY - PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS

Outfall ID Date of Sample Collection

Approximate Duration of

Sampling Period

661,000

336,000

215,000

Sample Results

Page1/1

Date Time Interval Flow Volume (gallons) Rainfall (inches) Date Time Interval Flow Volume (gallons) Rainfall (inches)3/13/2010 04:50 PM - 07:50 PM 54,197 0.28 3/13/2010 06:50 PM - 09:50 PM 82,969 0.933/13/2010 07:50 PM - 10:50 PM 128,376 0.65 3/14/2010 09:50 PM - 12:50 AM 183,000 0.303/14/2010 10:50 PM - 01:50 AM 164,270 0.55 3/14/2010 12:50 AM - 03:50 AM 114,588 0.133/14/2010 01:50 AM - 04:50 AM 96,940 0.22 3/14/2010 03:50 AM - 06:50 AM 75,849 0.073/14/2010 04:50 AM - 07:50 AM 69,383 0.06 3/14/2010 06:50 AM - 09:50 AM 46,453 0.033/14/2010 07:50 AM - 10:50 AM 42,026 0.03 3/14/2010 09:50 AM - 12:50 PM 37,056 0.003/14/2010 10:50 AM - 01:50 PM 30,139 0.00 3/14/2010 12:50 PM - 03:50 PM 13,529 0.003/14/2010 01:50 PM - 04:50 PM 7,020 0.00 3/14/2010 03:50 PM - 06:50 PM 2,215 0.00

592,351 1.79 555,659 1.46

Date Time Interval Flow Volume (gallons) Rainfall (inches) Date Time Interval Flow Volume (gallons) Rainfall (inches)3/23/2010 11:40 PM - 02:40 AM 91,586 0.83 3/23/2010 03:20 AM - 06:20 AM 86,801 0.313/23/2010 02:40 AM - 05:40 AM 110,414 0.31 3/23/2010 06:20 AM - 09:20 AM 36,480 0.003/23/2010 05:40 AM - 08:40 AM 43,283 0.00 3/23/2010 09:20 AM - 12:20 PM 3,454 0.003/23/2010 08:40 AM - 11:40 AM 2,195 0.00 3/23/2010 12:20 PM - 03:20 PM 19,389 0.003/23/2010 11:40 AM - 02:40 PM 16,807 0.00 3/23/2010 03:20 PM - 06:20 PM 19,946 0.033/23/2010 02:40 PM - 05:40 PM 20,272 0.03 3/23/2010 06:20 PM - 09:20 PM 11,234 0.023/23/2010 05:40 PM - 08:40 PM 15,200 0.02 3/24/2010 09:20 PM - 12:20 AM 19,028 0.003/23/2010 08:40 PM - 11:40 PM 14,504 0.00 3/24/2010 12:20 AM - 03:20 AM 18,572 0.01

314,261 1.19 214,904 0.37

Date Time Interval Flow Volume (gallons) Rainfall (inches) Date Time Interval Flow Volume (gallons) Rainfall (inches)6/1/2010 02:50 AM - 05:50 AM 25,849 0.03 6/1/2010 01:00 PM - 04:00 PM 23,618 0.276/1/2010 05:50 AM - 08:50 AM 26,856 0.00 6/1/2010 04:00 PM - 07:00 PM 19,710 0.006/1/2010 08:50 AM - 11:50 AM 26,856 0.00 6/1/2010 07:00 PM - 10:00 PM 15,671 0.006/1/2010 11:50 AM - 02:50 PM 28,039 1.43 6/2/2010 10:00 PM - 01:00 AM 11,966 0.006/1/2010 02:50 PM - 05:50 PM 19,762 0.00 6/2/2010 01:00 AM - 04:00 AM 11,598 0.006/1/2010 05:50 PM - 08:50 PM 15,121 0.00 6/2/2010 04:00 AM - 07:00 AM 11,598 0.006/1/2010 08:50 PM - 11:50 PM 13,129 0.00 6/2/2010 07:00 AM - 10:00 AM 11,598 0.006/2/2010 11:50 PM - 02:50 AM 11,598 0.00 6/2/2010 10:00 AM - 01:00 PM 11,598 0.00

167,209 1.46 117,356 0.27

JUNE 2, 2010 BASELINE EFFECTIVENESS INFLUENT SAMPLE JUNE 2, 2010 BASELINE EFFECTIVENESS EFFLUENT SAMPLE

Totals: Totals:

MARCH 13, 2010 BASELINE EFFECTIVENESS INFLUENT SAMPLE

Totals: Totals:

Totals:Totals:MARCH 23, 2010 BASELINE EFFECTIVENESS EFFLUENT SAMPLEMARCH 23, 2010 BASELINE EFFECTIVENESS INFLUENT SAMPLE

MARCH 13, 2010 BASELINE EFFECTIVENESS EFFLUENT SAMPLE

TABLE 2

OIL/WATER SEPARATOR 64Z PILOT STUDY REPORTGENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY - PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS

BASELINE EFFECTIVENESS SAMPLING FLOW VOLUMES AND RAINFALL LEVELS

Page1/1

OWS 64Z Influent 5/18/2010 48

OWS 64Z Effluent 5/18/2010 15.2

OWS 64Z Influent 8/16/2010 343

OWS 64Z Effluent 8/16/2010 139

Note:

TABLE 3

1. Samples were collected by ARCADIS and submitted to Columbia Analytical Services, Inc. for TSS analysis.


TSS JAR-TEST STUDY CONTROL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Outfall ID Date of Sample Collection

TSS Sample Results (mg/L)

Page1/1

Date: 05/18/2010 Time: 8:00 PM Weather Conditions: Rain / 50 °F Influent Stormwater Flow: ~700 gpm Water Temperature: NA °F

Total Flow Channel Width: 10 ft Total Flow Channel Depth: 5 ft 20% depth increment: 1 ft 50% depth increment: 2.5 ft 4 ft

Vel.20%

Vel.50%

Vel.80%

Vel.20%

Vel.50%

Vel.80%

Vel.20%

Vel.50%

Vel.80%

Vel.20%

Vel.50%

Vel.80%

Vel.20%

Vel.50%

Vel.80%

Vel.20%

Vel.50%

Vel.80%

Vel.20%

Vel.50%

Vel.80%

Vel.20%

Vel.50%

Vel.80%

Vel.20%

Vel.50%

Vel.80%

TABLE 4VELOCITY PROFILE MEASUREMENTS (MAY 2010)


Distance ( 0 ) Distance ( 0+5' )Time

Transect Location No. 1 Transect Location No. 2 Transect Location No. 3

Distance ( 0+10' )

Distance ( 0 )

Distance ( 0+5' )

Distance ( 0+10' )

Distance ( 0+10' )

Distance ( 0 )

Distance ( 0+5' )

0 00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

80% depth increment:

0 0 0 0.00 0 0.008:00 PM

to 9:00 PM

0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0 0.10 0.00 0.00 0

Page1/1

Date: 06/09/2010 Time: 5:00 PM Weather Conditions: Rain / 55 °F Influent Stormwater Flow: ~500 gpm Water Temperature: NA °F

Total Flow Channel Width: 10 ft Total Flow Channel Depth: 5 ft 20% depth increment: 1 ft 50% depth increment: 2.5 ft 4 ft

Vel.20%

Vel.50%

Vel.80%

Vel.20%

Vel.50%

Vel.80%

Vel.20%

Vel.50%

Vel.80%

Vel.20%

Vel.50%

Vel.80%

Vel.20%

Vel.50%

Vel.80%

Vel.20%

Vel.50%

Vel.80%

Vel.20%

Vel.50%

Vel.80%

Vel.20%

Vel.50%

Vel.80%

Vel.20%

Vel.50%

Vel.80%

TABLE 5VELOCITY PROFILE MEASUREMENTS (JUNE 2010)


80% depth increment:

Time

Transect Location No. 1 Transect Location No. 2 Transect Location No. 3

Distance ( 0 )

Distance ( 0+5' )

Distance ( 0+10' )

Distance ( 0 )

Distance ( 0+5' )

Distance ( 0+10' ) Distance ( 0 ) Distance

( 0+5' )Distance ( 0+10' )

5:00 PM to

6:00 PM0.00 0.02 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.000 0 0.00 0.02 0 0.01

Page1/1

Particle Size Ranges (microns) 1 - 5 5 - 15 15 - 25 25 - 50 50 - 100 100 - 150 150 - 200 > 200 Total

Particles in Specific Size Range(%) 65.9 16.8 10.5 5.3 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 100

Particle Concentration(million particles per liter) 31.3 7.97 5 2.5 0.48 0.14 0.05 0.05 47.47


Particles in Specific Size Range(%) 67.3 18.3 7.8 4.6 1.4 0.4 0.2 < 0.1 100

Particle Concentration(million particles per liter) 18.34 4.99 2.11 1.25 0.38 0.1 0.05 < 0.05 27.22

Notes:

TABLE 6

OWS 64Z INFLUENT SAMPLE RESULTS

OWS 64Z EFFLUENT SAMPLE RESULTS

2. Samples were collected by ARCADIS on May 18, 2010.

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION


(MAY 2010)

1. Samples were collected by ARCADIS and submitted to Adirondack Environmental Services, Inc. for particle size distribution analysis.

Page1/1


Particles in Specific Size Range(%) 74.6 19.2 3.4 2.6 0.2 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 100

Particle Concentration(million particles per liter) 2,946.3 759.6 133.6 103.3 7 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 3,949.80


Particles in Specific Size Range(%) 82.3 14.8 2.5 0.3 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 100

Particle Concentration(million particles per liter) 1,349.10 250.4 41.7 4.3 1.7 < 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 1,692.20

Notes:

OWS 64Z EFFLUENT SAMPLE RESULTS

1. Samples were collected by ARCADIS and submitted to Adirondack Environmental Services, Inc. for particle size distribution analysis.2. Samples were collected by ARCADIS on August 16, 2010.

TABLE 7PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

(AUGUST 2010)


OWS 64Z INFLUENT SAMPLE RESULTS

Page1/1

Figures

STORM SEWER PIPING CONNECTEDTO OIL/WATER SEPARATOR 64Z

FIGURE

1

IMA

GE

S:

XR

EF

S:

30124X

01

PR

OJE

CT

NA

ME

: -

---

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANYPITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS

OIL/WATER SEPARATOR 64Z PILOTSTUDY REPORT

CIT

Y:S

YR

AC

US

E, N

Y D

IV/G

RO

UP

:141/E

NV

CA

D D

B: A

. S

AM

IOS

S. K

OW

ALC

ZY

K L

. F

OR

AK

ER

P

IC: P

. K

EA

NE

Y P

M: A

. C

OR

BIN

T

M: A

. C

OR

BIN

LY

R:O

N=

*;O

FF

=*R

EF

*G

:\G

E\E

NV

CA

D\S

YR

AC

US

E\A

CT

\N\B

0030124\0

004\0

0001\D

WG

\OW

S\6

4Z

RE

PO

RT

\30124G

01.d

wg

L

AY

OU

T:

1 S

AV

ED

: 9/2

3/2

010 1

0:0

8 A

M A

CA

DV

ER

: 18.0

S (

LM

S T

EC

H)

P

AG

ES

ET

UP

: C

-LD

2B

-PD

F P

LO

TS

TY

LE

TA

BLE

: P

LT

FU

LL.C

TB

P

LO

TT

ED

: 9/2

3/2

010 1

0:0

8 A

M B

Y:

KO

WA

LC

ZY

K, S

TE

VE

NOT TO SCALE

FIGURE

OIL/WATERSEPARATOR 64Z PROFILE

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANYPITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS

OIL/WATER SEPARATOR 64Z PILOT STUDY REPORT

2

IMAGES:XREFS: PROJECTNAME: ----

CITY: SYRACUSE DIV/GROUP: ENVCAD DB: G. STEINBERGER L. FORAKER S. KOWALCZYK LD: PIC: P. KEANEY PM: A. CORBIN TM: A. CORBIN LYR: ON=*;OFF=*REF*G:\GE\ENVCAD\SYRACUSE\ACT\N\B0030124\0004\00001\DWG\OWS\64Z REPORT\30124G02.dwg LAYOUT: 2 SAVED: 9/1/2010 2:47 PM ACADVER: 18.0S (LMS TECH) PAGESETUP: C-LA-PDF PLOTSTYLETABLE: PLTFULL.CTB PLOTTED: 9/1/2010 2:48 PM BY: KOWALCZYK, STEVE

Appendix A

Adirondack Environmental Services, Inc. Analytical Data Packages

May 18, 2010 Adirondack Environmental Services, Inc. Analytical Data Package

EXPERIENCE IS THE SOLUTION

314 North Pearl Street Albany, New York 12207 (518) 434-4546 Fax: (518) 434-0891

LABORATORY REPORT

MATERIAL TESTING: SEM PARTICLE SIZE

Date: June 10, 2010 Attn: Paolo Filippetti

Arcadis

6723 Towpath Road

Syracuse, New York 13214

AES Report No. 100520005



i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... 1

TEST RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 1

CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................. 2

TEST DATA ..................................................................................................................... 3

TEST METHODS ............................................................................................................. 9

CHAIN OF CUSTODY ................................................................................................... 10



LABORATORY REPORT 1

ABSTRACT

TEST RESULTS

Two liquid samples designated PILOT STUDY-64Z-INF and PILOT

STUDY 64Z-EFF were submitted for particle size distribution. The

microscopy test method ASTM F-312 with specific size classes was

requested.

The samples were filtered through 0.4 micron pore size polycarboante

filters using Millipore Filtration apparatus. Representative filter sections

with the filter particulate were affixed to double-sided carbon tape. This

specimen was affixed to a carbon planchette and inserted into the electron

optical vacuum chamber. The sample was oriented to provide the optimum

conditions for imaging and x-ray analysis. The backscattered electron

imaging (BEI) mode of the SEM was used to determine distribution of the

filtered particulate material. The EVEX digital beam interface unit was

used to aid in particle size sizing.



LABORATORY REPORT 2

CONCLUSIONS

The SEM analysis of the PILOT STUDY-64Z-INF and PILOT STUDY

64Z-EFF samples provided physical data to support the following:

1. The particulate material suspended in both samples is inorganic

solids as individual particles and particle agglomerates.

2. The primary size class for both specimens is the 1 to 5 micron size

range.

3. The total suspended particle concentration for the PILOT STUDY-

64Z-INF designated sample is approximately double that of the

PILOT STUDY 64Z-EFF designated sample.



LABORATORY REPORT 3

TEST DATA

SCANNING ELECTRON PHOTOMICROGRAPHS PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TABLES



LABORATORY REPORT 4

SAMPLE: PILOT STUDY – 64Z – INF (BEI IMAGE)

• • •



LABORATORY REPORT 5

SAMPLE: PILOT STUDY – 64Z – INF (BEI IMAGE)

• • •



LABORATORY REPORT 6

SAMPLE: PILOT STUDY – 64Z – EFF (BEI IMAGE)

• • •



LABORATORY REPORT 7

SAMPLE: PILOT STUDY – 64Z – EFF (BEI IMAGE)

• • •



LABORATORY REPORT 8

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TABLE: PARTICLE DIAMETERS IN MICRONS 1-5 5-15 15-25 25-50 50-100 100-

150 150-200

> 200 TOTAL

65.9 % 16.8 % 10.5 % 5.3 % 1.0 % 0.3 % 0.3 % 0.3 % 100.0% 31.30 7.97 5.00 2.50 0.48 0.14 0.05 0.05 47.47 * * Million Particles per Liter SAMPLE: PILOT STUDY – 64Z – INF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TABLE: PARTICLE DIAMETERS IN MICRONS 1-5 5-15 15-25 25-50 50-100 100-

150 150-200

> 200 TOTAL

67.3 % 18.3 % 7.8 % 4.6 % 1.4 % 0.4 % 0.2 % <0.1 % 100.0% 18.34 4.99 2.11 1.25 0.38 0.10 0.05 <0.05 27.22 * * Million Particles per Liter SAMPLE: PILOT STUDY – 64Z – EFF



LABORATORY REPORT 9

TEST METHODS

Adirondack Environmental Services, Inc. Thomas K Hare Laboratory Manager/Microscopy AES Report No. 100520005

Scanning electron microscopy provides images formed by rastering a beam of electrons over the specimen surface and, using an electron or x-ray detector, records secondary, backscattered or x-ray signals. The images formed provide high resolution (20 Angstrom) with magnifications of 15 to 200,000 diameters. In addition to secondary and backscattered electrons, characteristic x-rays are also emitted during electron beam/sample surface interactions. Energy dispersive x-ray fluorescence spectroscopy using a conventional silicon-

lithium detector is capable of analyzing elemental concentrations from atomic

number 9 (fluorine) through 94 (plutonium) as they appear on the Periodic Table

of Elements. The integral counts beneath the peaks are processed through use of

a microcomputer to provide semi-quantitative composition profiles following

matrix, specimen/detector geometry and instrumentation correction factors.



LABORATORY REPORT 10

CHAIN OF CUSTODY




SAMPLE: BELLASUM EXTRACTION




SAMPLE: SPECTRAPROBE WATER




• • •

August 16, 2010 Adirondack Environmental Services, Inc. Analytical Data Package



LABORATORY REPORT

MATERIAL TESTING: SEM PARTICLE SIZE

Date: September 20, 2010 Attn: Paolo Filippetti

Arcadis

6723 Towpath Road

Syracuse, New York 13214

AES Report No. 100909036



i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... 1

TEST RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 1

CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................. 2

TEST DATA ..................................................................................................................... 3

TEST METHODS ............................................................................................................. 9

CHAIN OF CUSTODY ................................................................................................... 10



LABORATORY REPORT 1

ABSTRACT

TEST RESULTS

Two liquid samples designated PS-64Z-INF 081610 and PS- 64Z-EFF

081610 were submitted for particle size distribution. The microscopy test

method ASTM F-312 with specific size classes was requested.

The samples were filtered through 0.4 micron pore size polycarboante

filters using Millipore Filtration apparatus. Representative filter sections

with the filter particulate were affixed to double-sided carbon tape. This

specimen was affixed to a carbon planchette and inserted into the electron

optical vacuum chamber. The sample was oriented to provide the optimum

conditions for imaging and x-ray analysis. The backscattered electron

imaging (BEI) mode of the SEM was used to determine distribution of the

filtered particulate material. The EVEX digital beam interface unit was

used to aid in particle sizing.



LABORATORY REPORT 2

CONCLUSIONS

The SEM analysis of the PS-64Z-INF 081610 and PS-64Z-EFF 081610

samples provided physical data to support the following:

1. The particulate material suspended in both samples is inorganic

solids as individual particles and particle agglomerates.

2. The primary size class for both specimens is the 1 to 5 micron size

range.

3. The total suspended particle concentration for the PS-64Z-INF

081610 designated sample is approximately double that of the PS-

64Z-EFF 081610 designated sample.



LABORATORY REPORT 3

TEST DATA

SCANNING ELECTRON PHOTOMICROGRAPHS PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TABLES



LABORATORY REPORT 4

SAMPLE: PS– 64Z – INF 081610 (BEI IMAGE)

• • •



LABORATORY REPORT 5

SAMPLE: PS– 64Z – INF 081610 (BEI IMAGE)

• • •



LABORATORY REPORT 6

SAMPLE: PS– 64Z – EFF 081610 (BEI IMAGE)

• • •



LABORATORY REPORT 7

SAMPLE: PS– 64Z – EFF 081610 (BEI IMAGE)

• • •



LABORATORY REPORT 8

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TABLE: PARTICLE DIAMETERS IN MICRONS 1-5 5-15 15-25 25-50 50-100 100-

150 150-200

> 200 TOTAL

74.6 19.2 3.4 2.6 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 100.0% 2946.3 759.6 133.6 103.3 7.0 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 3949.8* * Million Particles per Liter SAMPLE: PS – 64Z – INF 081610 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TABLE: PARTICLE DIAMETERS IN MICRONS 1-5 5-15 15-25 25-50 50-100 100-

150 150-200

> 200 TOTAL

82.3 14.8 2.5 0.3 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 100.0% 1394.1 250.4 41.7 4.3 1.7 <0.3 <0.3 <0.3 1692.2* * Million Particles per Liter SAMPLE: PS – 64Z – EFF 081610



LABORATORY REPORT 9

TEST METHODS

Adirondack Environmental Services, Inc. Thomas K Hare Laboratory Manager/Microscopy AES Report No. 100909036

Scanning electron microscopy provides images formed by rastering a beam of electrons over the specimen surface and, using an electron or x-ray detector, records secondary, backscattered or x-ray signals. The images formed provide high resolution (20 Angstrom) with magnifications of 15 to 200,000 diameters. In addition to secondary and backscattered electrons, characteristic x-rays are also emitted during electron beam/sample surface interactions. Energy dispersive x-ray fluorescence spectroscopy using a conventional silicon-

lithium detector is capable of analyzing elemental concentrations from atomic

number 9 (fluorine) through 94 (plutonium) as they appear on the Periodic Table

of Elements. The integral counts beneath the peaks are processed through use of

a microcomputer to provide semi-quantitative composition profiles following

matrix, specimen/detector geometry and instrumentation correction factors.




CHAIN OF CUSTODY

Appendix B

Jar-Test Studies – Photos and Field Logs

May 18, 2010 Jar-Test Photos

TIME 0:00

TIME 5:00

OIL/WATER SEPARATOR (OWS) 64Z PILOT STUDY REPORTGENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY – PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS

JAR-TEST STUDIES – VISUAL OBSERVATIONSMAY 18, 2010



TIME 10:00

TIME 15:00



TIME 20:00

TIME 25:00

TIME 30:00

TIME 40:00



TIME 50:00

TIME 60:00



TIME 90:00



August 16, 2010 Jar-Test Photos

TIME 0:00

TIME 20:00


JAR-TEST STUDIES – VISUAL OBSERVATIONSAUGUST 16, 2010



TIME 30:00

TIME 40:00



TIME 60:00

TIME 90:00

May 18, 2010 Jar-Test Field Log

Date: Time: 10:30 PM Water Temperature: NA °F Weather Conditions: Cloudy, Showers, 50°F Influent Stormwater Flow~ 500 GPM

Influent/Effluent Sample Volume: gallon Sample Location/Description: Influent sample collected at 7:15 PM from influent end of OWS 64Z

Water/ Sediment Interface Observed

(Yes or A few macro particles observed on the bottom of the influent jar. Water in jar has a cloudy appearance where fine particles have

0:00 No not settled out.

No change from first observation. A few macro particles observed on the bottom of the influent jar. Water in jar has a cloudy 0:05 No appearance where fine particles have not settled out.









Some fine particles observed to have settled out and started to cling to the sides of the influent jar forming a thin layer or dusting 1:30 No around the bottom inch of the jar. The layer of fine particles is very opaque.

Thin lay (dusting) of sediment observed on bottom of influent jar.12:00 No

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY - PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS

5/18/2010

Time

Water/ Sediment Interface

Measurement (if observed)

Supernatant Sample

Collection for TSS Analysis(Sample ID)

Observations (e.g., recognition of interface development, sediment settling characteristics, etc.)

--

--

cm

1

NA --

INFLUENT JAR-TEST STUDY RESULTS (MAY 2010)

OIL/WATER SEPARATOR (OWS) 64Z PILOT STUDY REPORT

--cm

NA

NA --cm

NA --

cm

NAcm

NA

NA --cm

cm

NA --

cm

NA --cm

NA --

NA --cm

cm

NA --cm

Page

1/1

Date: Time: 10:30 PM Water Temperature: NA °F Weather Conditions: Cloudy, Showers, 50°F Effluent Stormwater Flow: ~ 500 GPM

Influent/Effluent Sample Volume: gallon Sample Location/Description: Effluent sample collected at 9:30 PM from effluent end of OWS 64Z


(Yes or Water in effluent jar observed to be slightly cloudy, but clear enough to see through. No settling of particles observed.

0:00 No

Water in effluent jar observed to be slightly cloudy, but clear enough to see through. No settling of particles observed.0:05 No











GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY - PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS

5/18/2010

Time



Supernatant Sample



--

--

cm

1

NA --

EFFLUENT JAR-TEST STUDY RESULTS (MAY 2010)

OIL/WATER SEPARATOR (OWS) 64Z PILOT STUDY REPORT

--cm

NA

NA --cm

NA --

cm

NAcm

NA

NA --cm

cm

NA --

cm

NA --cm

NA --

NA --cm

cm

NA --cm

Page

1/1

August 16, 2010 Jar-Test Field Log

Date: Time: 5:30 PM Water Temperature: NA °F Weather Conditions: Cloudy, Showers, 55°F Influent Stormwater Flow~ 500 GPM

Influent/Effluent Sample Volume: gallon Sample Location/Description: Influent sample collected at 2:30 PM from influent end of OWS 64Z


(Yes or A few macro particles observed on the bottom of the influent jar. Water in jar has a cloudy appearance where fine particles have




No change from first observation. A few macro particles observed on the bottom of the influent jar. Water in jar has a cloudy0:40 No appearance where fine particles have not settled out.

Some sediment observed on the bottom of influent jar. Water in jar is still cloudy in appearance where fine particles have not 1:00 No settled out.

Additional sediment particles observed on the bottom of influent jar. Water in jar is still cloudy in appearance where fine particles 1:30 No have not settled out.

INFLUENT JAR-TEST STUDY RESULTS (AUGUST 2010)


8/16/2010


NA --cm

1

Time



Supernatant Sample


NA --cm

NA --cm

NA --

NA --

--

cm

cm

NAcm

Page

1/1

Date: Time: 5:30 PM Water Temperature: NA °F Weather Conditions: Cloudy, Showers, 55°F Influent Stormwater Flow: ~ 500 GPM

Influent/Effluent Sample Volume: gallon Sample Location/Description: Effluent sample collected at 3:00 PM from influent end of OWS 64Z


(Yes or A few macro particles observed on the bottom of the effluent jar. Water in jar has a cloudy appearance where fine particles have






Thin layer of sediment observed on the bottom of effluent jar. Water in jar is still cloudy in appearance where fine particles have 1:30 No not settled out.

EFFLUENT JAR-TEST STUDY RESULTS (AUGUST 2010)


8/16/2010


NA --cm

1

Time



Supernatant Sample


NA --cm

NA --cm

NA --

NA --

--

cm

cm

NAcm

Page

1/1

OIL/WATER SEPARATOR 64Z PILOT STUDY REPORT (09/29/2010 ...

Documents

Transcript of OIL/WATER SEPARATOR 64Z PILOT STUDY REPORT (09/29/2010 ...