OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\00000CED\tiff\20013N50.tif): Unspecified error
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please rcaJ Instructions on the reverse kelorc I'l
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/600/D-89/083
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5. REPORT DATE
Drinking Water Treatment Technology For
Groundwater Remediation
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8.PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
James A. Goodrich and S. Bala Krishnan
TRY: PB89-223655
|9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
i Drinking Water Research Division
) Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
! U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
I Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory--Cin.,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
nsium Panpr
14. SPONSORIN9 AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer - James A. Goodrich (513)569-7605 (Commercial), 684-7605 (FTS)
16. ABSTRACT
It has become increasingly obvious that important interactions exist between
decisions regarding the treatment of contaminated ground and surface water for
consumption and aquifer restoration and hazardous waste cleanup.
Many of the contaminants to be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) are the same as those to be regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Hazardous Substances List. The
purpose of this paper is to (1) describe the state-of-the-art of drinking water
treatment technology and (2) provide examples of some field applications that
provide safe drinking water fd/m contaminanted aquifers.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
REPRODUCED BY
U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE
SPRINGFIELD, VA. 22161
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMEN1
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (Tins Reparil
UNCLASSIFIED
21, NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (Tins pa
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«v. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
i
l^itttiMiiMM
-------
l'PA/600/D-89/083
DRINKING WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY FOR GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION
by
James A. Goodrich
Systems and Field Evaluation Branch
Drinking Water Research Division
S. Bala Krishnan
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
National Waterwell Association
Third National Outdoor Action Conference
on Aquifer Restoration, Groundwater
Monitoring and Geophysical Methods
May 22-25, 1989
Orlando, Florida
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DRINKING ViATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION
JAMES A. GOODRICH {
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO
S. BALA KRISHNAN
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, DC
INTRODUCTION
It has become increasingly obvious that important interactions exist
between decisions regarding the treatment of contaminated ground and sur-
face water for consumption and aquifer restoration and hazardous waste
cleanup.
One major distinction must be made regarding the treatment goals of
Federal or State drinking water programs and for example, aquifer remedi-
ation programs. The objective of pumping contaminated groundwater to the
surface and then treating it by drinking water programs, is to provide safe
drinking water to consumers immediately by reducing their exposure to the
contaminants. The objective of an aquifer remediation program is to re-
store the aquifer to its original condition. If the source of contamin-
ation is stopped, drinking water treatment may or may not restore the
aquifer to its original condition, but it will provide a safe drinking
water. Aquifer remediation may pump and treat the water then reinject it
back into the aquifer, or use in-situ techniques, to eventually restore the
aquifer, but may not deal specifically with human consumption at the point
of withdrawal. Continuous aquifer contamination such as resulting from
routine agricultural chemical application or natural causes could only be
remedied for human consumption through application of a drinking water
treatment technology.
Many of the contaminants to be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) are the same as those to be regulated under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Hazardous
Substances List. Table 1 shows this comparison.
*•**
-------
TABLE 1. CERCLA HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LIST
(Priority Group 1)
Name
Drinking Water Regulation
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Cyanide
Dieldrin/Aldrin
Chloroform
Benzene
Vinyl chloride
Hethylene Chloride
Heptachlor/heptachlor epoxide
Trichloroethylene
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Tetrachloroethylene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Chrysene
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Lead
Nickel
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
PCBs-Aroclor 1260, 1254, 1248, 1242, 1232, 1261,
1016
yes
yes
yes
yes
banned
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
CERCLA requires that remedial actions be undertaken in compliance with
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), both State and
Federal. EPA suggests that in most situations encountered in CERCLA
actions, MCLs are the applicable and appropriate clean-up level. If no MCL
exist, then health advisories can be used. MCLGs are often preferred by
States, being more protective of human health, but long term O&M costs are
high.
Each groundwater quality investigation is unique, but for each, the
investigator must define the objectives of the study, that in turn will
determine the complexity, time, and cost of the project. Groundwater mon-
itoring well design, location, construction, and sampling programs must be
merged with treatment technology into a decision-making framework. Know-
ledge of site geology, hydrology, site characteristics, contaminant source
characteristics, and treatment cost and performance are required. Much is
written regarding the proper monitoring network, but nothing has tied toge-
ther location and sizing of drinking water treatment technologies. For
example, there are many trade-offs possible locating one large packed tower
-------
aerator instead of several smaller towers scattered over an aquifer.
Another possibility could be a temporary Granular Activated Contactor (GAC)
to treat a '.tot spot while other technologies are utilized elsewhere over
the aquifer. The following sections describe the state-of-the-art of
drinking wrLar treatment technology and some field applications, that could
have an imrudiate and widespread impact on providing safe drinking water
from contaminated aquifers.
DRINKING WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
The 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act have greatly
accelerated regulatory activities in the drinking water area. It is
anticipated that 83 contaminants in drinking water will be regulated by
1991 with an additional 25 standards to be written at intervals of 3 years
thereafter. In developing MCLs, EPA is required by the SDWA, to demonstrate
the feasibility of a technology for removing a contaminant. The standard
research protocol is to evaluate unit processes at the bench level; test
the process at the pilot scale; and, if its performance is promising, build
a prototype for field evaluation.
Table 2 summarizes the treatment technologies that the Drinking Water
Research Division of the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory in
Cincinnati, Ohio is evaluating for removal of volatile organic chemicals
(VOCs), synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs), nitrates, and radionuclides
from water supplies (both surface and ground). The table indicates carbon
adsorption is effective for removing both VOCs and SOCs. Packed tower and
diffused aeration are best suited for removing VOCs. Ion exchange has been
field tested to show effective removal of nitrates and pilot-tested for
uranium removal. Reverse osmosis (RO) has proven to be effective in the
field for radium removal and pilot-tested for nitrate removals. Of the
technologies that show promise and are being tested at the bench and pilot
scales, conventional treatment with powdered activated carbon (PAC) is
effective for removing a few of the SOCs, ozone oxidation is effective for
removing certain classes of VOCs and SOCs, and certain reverse osmosis
membranes and ultraviolet treatment are also potentially effective against
VOCs and SOCs. Aeration and carbon adsorption are being examined for their
radon removal capabilities.
TABLE 2. TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES EVALUATED BY EPA's DRINKING
WATER RESEARCH DIVISION FOR REMOVING VOLATILE ORGANIC
CHEMICALS (VOCs), SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS (SOCs), NITRATES
AND RADIONUCLIDES FROM DRINKING WATER(1)
Technology
Status
Field-tested
1.
2.
3.
4.
Technology
Carbon adsorption
Packed tower and
diffused-air aeration
Ion exchange
Reverse osmosis
Contaminant Class
or Specific
Contaminant Removed
1. VOCs, SOCs
2. VOCs
3. Nitrates
4. Radium
-------
TABLE 2. TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES EVALUATED BY EPA's DRINKING
WATER RESEARCH DIVISION FOR REMOVING VOLATILE ORGANIC
CHEMICALS (VOCs), SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS (SOCs), NITRATES
AND RADIONUCLIDES FROM DRINKING WATER11'
Technology
Status
Technology
Contaminant Class
or Specific
Contaminant Removed
Pilot-tested
Promising
technologies
1. Reverse osmosis
2. Ion exchange
1. Conventional treatment
with powdered activated
carbon
2. Ozone oxidation
3. Reverse osmosis
4. Ultraviolet treatment
5. Ion exchange
6. Selective complexer
7. Aeration
8. Carbon adsorption
1. Nitrates, uranium
2. Uranium
1. SOCs
2. VOCs, SOCs
3. VOCs, SOCs
4. VOCs, SOCs
5. Radium
6. Radium
7. Radon
8. Radon
FIELD APPLICATIONS
Over two-thirds of the Superfund actions to date deal with a con-
taminated drinking water supply. As a result of contamination, conven-
tional and "emerging" drinking water treatment technologies are being
applied at several state/local utilities and Federal Superfund sites. In
many cases, off-the-shelf equipment is utilized which may not be the most
cost effective means to reduce the risk of exposure to hazardous toxic
wastes. Many of the technologies applied for remediation, and the con-
centration levels of the contaminants removed at Superfund sites are not
necessarily any different than those encountered by water utility managers
elsewhere in the United States. Because of a lack of follow-up information
regarding these treatment installations, it is difficult to know if actual
performance is meeting or exceeding the design criteria.
An examination of the 204 Superfund Records of Decision (RODs) pro-
duced between Fiscal Years (FY) 82-86 indicated treatment technology as a
solution in only 25% of its actions. Of the 75 RODs produced in FY 87,
59% suggested control technology as a solution, reflecting an increasing
trend towards permanent treatment using engineering controls.
The majority of remedial actions nationally in FY 86 have involved
offsite disposal or capping as shown in Table 3. Table 4 displays similar
information for 75 RODs signed in FY 87 by Region. On the surface> it ap-
pears that a good effort is being put forth in using drinking water treat-
ment as a solution to Superfund remedial actions. However, of the 44
source control RODs, 27 employed treatment technologies and thermal destru-
ction was the technology most often selected (48 percent), while solidifi-
-------
cat'on was selected 26 percent of the time. Aeration was used only 11
percent of the time. Inclusion of thermal destruction and solidification
as a "Treatment Technology" is misleading in that these technologies leave
only a barren or nonuseable environment behind, and may not be permanent
where solidification is concerned. These are not treatment technologies
in the "drinking water" sense. The use of the term "Groundwater Treatment"
in Table 4 is also very misleading in that in the RODs it can mean: a new
well, pumping to waste or purge, or discharge directly to a wastewater
treatment plant. In EPA Region V, between FY 82-86, 45 RODs were signed
and only 11 utilized aeration or GAC. According to ROD summaries there are
several "Pump and Treat" operations underway, but no other information is
available. For water utility managers and Superfund personnel
contemplating treatment, a great deal of information is needed for all
treatment technologies in order to make rational decisions. This may
include the optimization of treatment train combinations,;including in-
situ, to remove very high levels of organics subject to variable influent
levels for full time and intermittent operation.
TABLE 3. FY 86
Remedial Action Proposed
SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Percent of RODS*
Offsite Disposal
Capping
Treatment
Alternative Water Supplies
54
36
17
15
Summed percentages exceed 100% due to multiple solutions at Superfund
Sites'21
TABLE 4. FY 87 RODS(3)
REGION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
RODS
3
15
5
11
14
11
3
7
5
1
ALT WATER
SUPPLY
1
4
0
4
2
0
0 *
0
1
1
GROUNDWATER
TREATMENT
3
7
0
5
7
3
1
1
4
1
TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
4
6
2
6
5
4
0
0
0
0
STORAGE OF
WASTES
0
4
2
4
10
7
3
5
0
0
TOTAL
75
13
32
32
35
I
-------
In general, there appears to be a heavy dependauce on packed tower !
aeration for central treatment and granular activated carbon for point-of-
entry (POE) installations. There is little information available on actual '
operating cost and performance nor does there seem to be much innovation j
in design. There are, however, some interesting POE applications using
packed tower aeration in series with GAC units and diffused basin aeration i
installations for home use. A cooperative study between Superfund, Leaking
Underground Storage Tank sites, and drinking water activities has been
initiated to develop a guidance document for the use and management of
whole house POE devices. The need for POE devices may skyrocket in the
1990s because of the possible widespread contamination of individual wells
from routine application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer already
seen in many parts of the corn-belt.
Special attention needs to be paid to the handling of off-gases and
contaminated media from both central and POE units. The probable long-term
use of POE units is an even more demanding problem. Where a large number
of POE units are installed in a well defined geographic area such as Long
Island, NY or South Florida, central control or a circuit-rider concept is
possible in monitoring contaminant breakthrough and collection and disposal
of contaminated media. However, rural homeowners are presently on their «
own in determining POE performance, and given our experience, will often j
neglect their units and will be at higher risk after the systems havo been '
operational for a period of time. In addition, without some sort of insti-
tutional mechanism, aquifer changes, or new contamination plumes, such as
recently found in Wausau, WI will go undetected and the consumer will go
unprotected.
EPA Region V Case Study
More than half of the 15,000 community water supply wells have been
tested by Region V. Just over 600 wells have contained at least trace
levels of VOCs. Of these, 138 wells in 60 communities have been taken out
of service and 30 wells have had treatment equipment installed to protect
public health.'4' Table 5 lists a portion of the communities for example,
and the corrective action taken. Many remedies merely circumvent the
contamination by using another water supply. Table 6 shows data from
selected locations where air stripping is currently being used and is
providing 95-99 percent removal. Table 7 displays data for two GAC units '
in operation that are providing 99+ percent removal. Table 8 shows some
other examples of GAC removal beyond Region V that are providing 97-99+
percent removal.
A microcomputer "Register" is being developed consisting of cost and
performance data, operation and maintenance histories, site plan and con-
taminant information and will be made available.
Questions are constantly being asked of EPA regional staff, state
officials, and water utilities regarding the design and operation of
recently installed treatment technology. On Site Coordinators (OSCs),
Remedial Project Managers (RPMs), water system operators and municipal ;
officials want to know who manufactures treatment technology that can be j
i
-------
used quickly on-site. Engineering firms and manufacturers want to know
where to get design information and where they can go to see operating
units.
TABLE 5. REGION 5 COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS WHERE VOCs HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED
AT LEVELS THAT EXCEED A ONE-IN-ONE-HUNDRED-THOUSAND RISK-
COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY
LOCATION (CITY. STATE)
CORRECTIVE ACTION
1. Libertyville Public Water Supply
Libertyville, Illinois
2. Elkhart Water Works (SF)
Elkhart, Indiana
3. Indiana-American Water Co.
Terre Haute, Indiana
4. Monon Water Utility (SF)
Monon, Indiana
5. South Bend Water Works
South Bend, Indiana
6. Battle Creek Municipal Water Supply (SF)
Battle Creek, Michigan
7. Berrien Springs Municipal Water Supply
Berrien Springs, Michigan
8. Buckhorn Mobile Home Park
Berrien Springs, Michigan
9. Charlevoix Municipal Water Supply (SF)
Charlevoix, Michigan
System placed on
quarterly VOC
monitoring schedule.
Continual monitoring
being conducted by
system. Aeration tower
installed. City water
mains extended to con-
taminated private wells.
Continual monitoring
being conducted by
system. Conventional
treatment includes
aeration and blending.
Packed tower aeration
installed.
One well field affected.
Well field management
reduces VOCs to within
acceptable levels.
Interceptor/aeration
treatment system and new
well installed.
Continual monitoring
being conducted. Well
field manag ement
practiced.
Contaminated wells
abandoned, new well
installed.
Water treatment plant
under construction using
Lake Michigan supply.
-------
TABLE 5. REGION 5 COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS WHERE VOCs HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED
AT LEVELS THAT EXCEED A ONE-IN-ONE-HUNDRED-THOUSAND RISK (CONT.)
COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY
LOCATION (CITY. STATE)
CORRECTIVE ACTION
10. Clare Municipal Water Supply
Clare, Michigan
11. Greenfield Pointe Subdivision
Livingston Co., Michigan
12. Hartford Municipal Water Supply
Hartford, Michigan
13. Hilltop Mobile Home Park
Plainfield Township, Michigan
14. Kalanazoo Municipal Water Supply
Kalamazoo, Michigan
15. Kent City Mobile Home Park
Kent City, Michigan
16. Niles Municipal Water Supply
Miles, Michigan
17. Petoskey Municipal Water Supply
Petoskey, Michigan
18. Portage Municipal Water Supply
Portage, Michigan
19. Saranac Municipal Water Supply
Saranac, Michigan
20. Spring Arbor College Water Supply
Spring Arbor, Michigan
21. Sturgis Municipal Water Supply
Sturgis, Michigan
SF - Superfund Site
Aeration unit installed.
Contaminant source was
corrosion inhibitor.
Material removed.
State financing secured
for construction of a new
well.
I
Water main extended from
township system.
Purging of Central
Field underway.
Well
Contaminated wells
removed from routine use.
New well installed.
Contaminated well removed
from service.
One new well installed.
A second well under
construction.
Contaminated well removed
from service.
Contaminated wells
removed from service.
One new well installed
and a VOC removal project
underway.
Two wells removed from
service. New regional
water system under
design.
New well installed.
Capacity of existing
wells to be increased.
Contaminated wells used
for peak demand only.
-------
TABLE 6. AIR STRIPPING APPLICATIONS
Tower
Air:
Location Production
(# of towers) (MGD) Contaminants
Hartland, WI 1.4 TCE(a), PCE{b),
(1) 1,2-DCE(C)
Schofield, WI 1.1 . TCE, PCE, 1,2-DCE
ml 1 1 -TfA'"'
1,1,1 ILH
Rothschild, WI 4 TCE, PCE, DCE,
(2) Benzene
Wausau, WI 8 TCE, PCE, DCE
(2)
Elkhart, IN 10 TCE, Carbon
(3) Tetrachloride
Concentrati
(ug/L)
170
100
100
200'
100
on Water
Ratio
50:1
28:1
40:1
35:1
30:1
Height
(feet)
35
40
55
25
55
(a) - Trichloroethylene
(b) - Tetrachloroethylene
(c) - 1,2-Trans-dichloroethylene
(d) - 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
TABLE 7. GAC APPLICATIONS
Location Liquid Contactor Contact
(number of Loading Diameter Time Contam-
contactors) Production gpm/sq ft (ft) (min) inants
Atwater, MN
(D
0.22 MGD 1.9
Spring Grove,
MN 0.23 MGD 2.0
10
10
NA
PCE(a>), TCE(b)
30.35 Carbon
Tetra-
chloride
NA - Not Available
(a) - letrachloroethylene
(b) - Trichloroethylene
-------
TABLE 8. Synthetic Organic Chemicals Removed from Hazardous
Waste Streams by GAC
Compound
Location of
Incident
Quantity
Treated,
(gallons)
Contact
Time,
(minutes)
Influent
Concen-
tration
(ug/L)
Effluent
Concen-
tration
(ug/L)
PCB
Toxaphene
Chlordane
Heptachlor
Penta-
chlorophenol
Toluene
Xylene
Seattle, WA 600,000
The Plains, VA 250,000
Strongstown, PA 100,000
Strongstown, PA 100,000
Haverford, PA 215,000
Oswego, NY 250,000
Oswego, NY 250,000
30-40
26
17
17
400
36
13
6.1
0.075
1
0.35
0.06
7.6 10,000 0.1
8.5 120 0.3
8.5 140 0.1
Once treatment units are installed, whether at a Superfund site or at
a local utility, there is generally little follow-up to see if designs are
proper or are adequate mechanically to stand up for a reasonable period of
time. Of particular interest to researchers and designers of treatment
equipment is the correlation of actual operating experience with pilot
plant tests or theoretical design criteria.
The Register being developed lists units already designed and should
therefore reduce design costs by allowing consultants to utilize previous
design details. Follow-up information from previous installations should
point out design deficiencies as well as over-design. Follow-up informa-
tion might also point out serious problems caused by previous installations
and how some changes in design may eliminate future problems. Entire
treatment concepts may be shown to be impractical in certain circumstances,
or that treatment 'is causing problems within households thus making a
utility or Federal government potentially liable for damages.
Other factors such as weather, site conditions, or water chemistry
not considered in the design might prove to be of great importance and
should be considered more in future designs. Other problems may result
from additional treatment such as corrosion or clogging of distribution
system mains or household plumbing.
-------
POE Field Applications
The predominant contaminants being treated are the chlorinated sol-
vents including Trichloroethylene, Tetrachloroethylene, 1,1,1-Trichloro-
ethane, 1,2-Dichloroethane, and 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene. Also being
treated are waters contaminated by petroleum products, aldicarb, ethylene
dibromide or radon. Table 9 summarizes the contaminants of concern and
their influent levels. The removal efficiencies provided by the various
systems ranged between 86 and 99+ percent. No Federal Superfund sites were
found in Regions 6-10 utilizing POE units. Little has been found on
Reverse Osmosis and Ion Exchange technologies. Figure 1 describes a home
aerator in series with a carbon unit being used in some locations. This
particular design was installed under the steps in the homeowner's base-
ment. Costs for most POE units range between 2,000 and 3,000 dollars with
carbon replacement averaging 500 dollars.
Information relative to system design and operation was identified;
however, the level of detail of the design information (i.e., unit specifi-
cations) are somewhat lacking. System suppliers and designers have been
either reluctant or unable to provide the type of information needed. Many
are small operations with limited personnel and financial resources
available for organizing and presenting the requested data.
In most cases, no quality control (QC) for analytical data obtained
were available, including test methods, protocols, and QC samples. Some
samples were analyzed by field gas chromatographs to determine the presence
or absence of contaminants. Although these data are useful for the system
monitors to determine contaminant exposure, they may not provide the level
of confidence required for the development of a technical assistance
document for example.
TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF EXISTING DATA
POE WATER TREATMENT STUDY(5'
SITE NAME POE SYSTEM CONTAMINANTS
& LOCATION
MAX.
INFLUENT
(ug/L)
NO. POE
SYSTEMS
INSTALLED
State of Diffused air Gasoline and 240,000 100
Maine stripping No. 2 Fuel Oil
State of Diffused air , Radon 400,000 pC/L NA
Maine stripping, or
packed tower
11
^i^-^™^^*^^^ ••*-**
-------
TABLE S. SUMMARY OF EXISTING DATA
POE WATER TREATMENT STUDY'5? (CONT.)
SITE NAME
& LOCATION
Suffolk
County Water
Treatment,
Suffolk
County
New York
Cattaraugus
County,
New York
Green County
New York
Onendaga
County,
New Ycrk
York County,
Pennsyl-
vania
Berks
County,
Pennsyl-
vania
Adamstown,
Maryland
Monroe
County,
Pennsyl-
vania
POE SYSTEM
Carbon cell
2 Carbon
Cells
2 Carbon
Cells
Packed Tower
Prefilter,
Carbon cell,
UV light
Prefilter,
Carbon cell,
UV light
Prefilter,
Carbon cell,
UV light
Prefilter,
Carbon cell,
UV light
CONTAMINANTS
Aldicarb
TCE(a)
PCE(b)
TCE
l,2-DCE(c)
l,l-DCA(d!
TCE
1,2-DCE
TCE
PCE
DCA
l,l,l-TCA(e)
TCE
1,1,1-TCA
1,1-DCA
1,2-DCE
TCE
1,2-DCE
PCE
MAX.
INFLUENT
(ug/L)
500
;
3,600
79,500
690
4,600
1,700
23,000
1,000
50
570
520
44,000
210
570
7,000
290
30
NO. POE
SYSTEMS
INSTALLED
3,000
37
6
5
2
2
6
28
18
22
12
-------
TA3LE 9. SUMMARY OF EXISTING DATA
POE WATER TREATMENT STUDY(5) (CONT.)
SITE NAME
& LOCATION
Florida
POE SYSTEM
2 Carbon
Cells
CONTAMINANTS
Napthalene
Total hydro-
MAX.
INFLUENT
(ug/L)
12
NO. POE
SYSTEMS
INSTALLED
11
carbons
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
1,2-DCA
Toluene
Xylene
220
210
38
89
8
63
Polk and
Jackson
Counties,
Florida
Prefilter,
2 Carbon
Cells, UV light
Ethylene
dibromide
(EDB)
800
850
Byron, Prefilter, TCE 500
Illinois 2 Carbon PCE 130
Cells
Elkhart, Prefilter, TCE 5,000
Indiana 2 Carbon Cells,
Packed Tower Carbon tetra-
Aeration chloride 7,500
Uniontown, Packed Tower Vinyl Chloride 7
Ohio Aeration Chloroethane 2
10
60
1
9
(a) - Trichloroethylene
(b) - Tetrachloroethylene
(c) - 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
(d) - 1,1-dichlorethane
(e) - 1,1-trichloroethane
13
-------
INFLUENT WATER SUPPLY
FROM WELL
EFFLUENT WATER SUPPLY
TO HOUSE
ULTRAVIOLET
LIGHT
CARBON FILTERS
OVERFLOW
PIPE
WATER TANK
WITH BLADDER
BOOSTER PUMP
FIGURE 1. HOME AIR STRIPPER AND GAG FILTER
(ELKHART, INDIANA)
CONCLUSIONS
A total of 7,900 confirmed hazardous waste sites in 46 states have
been identified along with over 22,000 suspected sites.(6) Since 90% of
the confirmed sites are not currently on the National Priority List and
Region V alone has over 500 locations on the NPL, the need for information
and technology transfer is enormous. Currently, data collection, as shown
in Tables 5-9, is underway in EPA Regions V and VIII. There is a great
deal of information available across the country in addition to Superfund
activities that need to be synthesized and assembled into a format useable
to state, local and federal authorities in order to reduce consumers' risk
of exposure to toxic hazardous wastes.
This paper has been reviewed in accordance with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's peer and administrative review policies and approved
for presentation and publication. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the
USEPA.
14
-------
References
'
1. Clark, R. M., Fronk, C. A., and Lykins, Jr., B. W., "Removing Organic
Contamin?tits From Groundwater", Environmental Science and Technology.
October, 1988, pp. 1126-1130.
2. Hazardous Site Control Division, SUPERFUND Records of Decision Updates
- FY 86.
3. Hazardous Site Control Division, SUPERFUND Records of Decision
Updates, ROD Annual Report, June 1988.
4. U.S. EPA, Region V, EPA Environmental News Release. May, 1986.
5. PEI Associates, Inc., "Evaluation of Point-of-Entry Water Treatment
Systems for Superfund Applications - Phase I Draft Report", Mary K.
Stinson, Project Officer, U.S. EPA, Hazardous Waste Environmental
Research Laboratory, Edison, NJ, March 1988.
6. The Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials, State Programs for Hazardous Waste Site Assessments and
Remedial Actions. June 1987.
15
U'
------- |