/.^ V UNITED STATES
f ^M^ 1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
" REGION IX
DEMONSTRATION OF THE
ULTROX INTERNATIONAL
ULTRAVIOLET/OXIDATION TECHNOLOGY
LORENTZ BARREL AND DRUM SITE
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
MARCH 8, 1989
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
?ECPHNOLOGY'TVALUATVION OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45268
March 8, 1989
Dear Visitor.
On behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program, we would like to
welcome you to the Ultrox International technology demonstration.
This packet presents background information on the SITE program, the Ultrox
technology, the Lorentz Barrel and Drum site, and the criteria and methods that will be
used to evaluate the technology.
If you have any future questions about this innovative technology, please contact
the EPA program manager, Ms. Norma Lewis.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION (SITE)
ULTRAVIOLET (UV)/OXIDATION PROCESS DEMONSTRATION
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
AGENDA
(9:00 a.m. - Presentation)
Norma Lewis
U.S. EPA - ORD/RREL
Introduction
David Fletcher
Ultrox International
Description of the UV/oxidation
technology
Glenn Piehler
EBASCO Services, Inc.
Description of the Lorentz Barrel
and Drum site
Kumar Tppudurti
PRC Environmental Management, Inc.
Discussion of the Demonstration Plan
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION (SITE)
ULTRAVIOLET (UV)/OXIDATION PROCESS DEMONSTRATION
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
CONTACT LIST
Demonstration Project Manager
Region IX Site Manager
SITE Program Coordinator
Ultrox International
Technology Developer
Technology Evaluation Managers
Region IX
Community Relations Coordinator
EPA Contractor
Community Relations Coordinator
Norma Lewis
U.S. EPA - ORD
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7665
Joseph Healy
U.S. EPA - Superfund Remedial Branch
215 Fremont Street (T-4-5)
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)974-8011
Jim Cummings
U.S. EPA - OSWER
Technology Staff WH-562A
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-4686
David Fletcher
Ultrox International
2435 South Anne Street
Santa Ana, CA 92704
(714) 545-5557
Tom P. Adkisson
PRC Environmental Management, Inc.
120 Howard Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 543-4880
Gary K. Welshans
PRC Environmental Management, Inc.
120 Howard Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 543-4880
Norman Calero
U.S. EPA (T-1-3)
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)974-8003
Sharon H. Weinberg
PRC Environmental Management, Inc.
120 Howard Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 543-4880
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION (SITE)
ULTRAVIOLET (UV)/OXIDATION PROCESS DEMONSTRATION
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
ADDITIONAL EPA SITE PROGRAM CONTACTS
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (ORD)
John Skinner
Acting Deputy Director
RD-681
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-2600
Fred Lindsey
Acting Director of the Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology Demonstration
(OEETD)
RD-681
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-4316
Greg Ondich
Director of Hazardous Waste
401 M Street, S.W.
RD-681
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-5753
Dick Valentinetti
Assistant to the Director of Hazardous Waste
RD-681
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202)382-2611
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE (OSWER)
Margaret M. Kelly
Director of Technology Staff
WH-562A
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-7953
Linda Galer
Environmental Engineer, Technology Staff
WH-562A
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-4363
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION (SITE)
ULTRAVIOLET (UV)/OXIDATION PROCESS DEMONSTRATION
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
OSWER (continued)
John Kingscott
Environmental Specialist, Technology Staff
WH-562A
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-4362
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN CINCINNATI
Ronald Hill
Director, Superfund Technology Demonstration Division
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7861
Robert Olexsey
Branch Chief, SITE Demonstration Evaluation Branch
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7696
Stephen James
Chief, Technology Evaluation Staff
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7877
-------
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION (SITE)
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Past hazardous waste disposal practices and the environmental and human health impacts
of those practices caused Congress to enact the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 (PL96-510). The original act established a
Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund to handle emergencies at uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites and to cleanup the sites; this fund has become known as the Superfund. EPA has proceeded
to investigate these hazardous waste sites and establish national priorities for site cleanups. The
ultimate objectives of these investigations are to develop plans for permanent, long-term site
cleanups, although EPA does initiate short-term removal actions when necessary. The list of
cleanup sites is known as the National Priorities List (NPL).
Congress expressed concern over the use of land-based disposal and containment
technologies to mitigate problems caused by releases of hazardous substances at hazardous waste
sites. Due to this concern, the 1986 reauthorization of CERCLA, called the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), mandates that EPA select, to the
maximum extent practicable, remedial actions at Superfund sites that create permanent solutions
to the sites' contamination effects on human health or the environment. In doing so, EPA is
directed to make use of alternative or resource recovery technologies.
EPA has established a formal program to accelerate the development, demonstration, and
use of new or innovative technologies to be used in site cleanups. This program, called the
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program, has four goals:
• To identify and, where possible, remove impediments to the development
and commercial use of alternative technologies.
! • To conduct a demonstration program of the more promising innovative
technologies for the purpose of establishing reliable performance and cost
information for site characterization and cleanup decision-making.
• To develop procedures and policies that encourage selection of available
alternative treatment remedies at Superfund sites.
To structure a development program that nurtures emerging technologies.
Each year EPA solicits proposals to demonstrate innovative technologies. To identify the
best available technologies, an extensive solicitation is necessary. A screening and selection
process follows, based on four factors: (1) the technology's capability to treat Superfund wastes,
(2) the technology's performance and cost expectations, (3) the technology's readiness and
applicability to full-scale demonstrations, and (4) the developer's capability and approach to
testing.
The SITE demonstration program is administered by a steering committee composed of
personnel from the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) and the Office of
Research and Development (ORD). The committee evaluates the technology proposals and, with
the assistance of EPA regional offices, matches the technologies to appropriate sites. OSWER and
ORD establish the criteria for the waste site selection for each demonstration.
SITE demonstrations are usually conducted at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites such as
EPA removal and remedial sites, state sites, sites under the auspices of other federal agencies,
EPA testing and evaluation facilities, sites undergoing private cleanup, the technology developer's
site, or privately-owned facilities. Sites are selected cooperatively by OSWER, ORD, EPA
regional offices, and the states. The final site is selected in close cooperation with the technology
developer.
-------
A public notice is issued by EPA, and a comment period, followed by a public meeting, is
held for each proposed site-technology match. The appropriate EPA regional office prepares a
responsiveness summary and forwards it, along with the region's recommendations, to EPA
headquarters in Washington. On the basis of the region's recommendations, OSWER and ORD
make a joint decision on the site-technology match and prepare a decision document.
Technology demonstrations under the SITE program focus on the pilot stage or field-scale
stage of operation. The technologies initially selected by EPA under the SITE program will
already have been tested at the laboratory or bench-scale level.
The main objectives of the demonstration program are to develop reliable performance
and cost data on the innovative alternative technologies. The emphasis of the SITE program is to
collect performance data of a known quality. Therefore, the procedures used in conducting
sampling and analysis are most important, and approved quality assurance and quality control
(QA/QC) procedures must be stringently applied throughout the demonstration program.
The SITE demonstrations should provide detailed performance, cost effectiveness, and
reliability data so that potential users have sufficient information to make sound judgments as to
the applicability of the technology to a specific site and to compare it to other currently available
technology alternatives. Figure 1 represents the schedule and duration of the Ultrox International
system SITE demonstration.
The demonstration process identifies the following:
The effectiveness of the process from an assessment of sampling and
analysis results.
• The potential need for pre- and post-treatment processing of raw and
treated materials.
• The site-specific wastes and media to which the process can be applied.
• Any potential site-specific system operating problems and their possible
resolutions.
• The approximate capital, operating, and maintenance costs.
• The projected long-term operating and maintenance costs.
In January 1988, EPA solicited proposals from technology developers to demonstrate
innovative technologies at Superfund sites under the SITE program. Ultrox International
submitted a proposal under this program for its Ultrox technology. This technology was one of
several selected for demonstration by EPA and is being considered by U.S. EPA Region IX for
remediating contamination at the Lorentz Barrel and Drum (LB&D) site in San Jose, California.
Through a cooperative effort between EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) and
EPA Region IX, the Ultrox technology is being demonstrated under the SITE program at the
LB&D site.
-------
ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION
1988
JuV luourt
11 23 1 B IS 22
3 10 17 24 Jl 7 14 21 21 5 12 19 29
2 9 19 23 30
8 13 20 27
« 13 20 27
3 10 17 24 1 B 15 22 29
10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28
(fed. Fact SOT*) I
Ml C
EM Rah. d DnraMta PU
fnd D»iM»Uiliui Pto
•Ml Ptan - fcrt MB*™** No. 2
hUtgownmtfil Hrtm
CMiiBMiJfr MaUara
suev
15. Mc**eMat
li. Dmriopv Demi
17. Crtl TKtaM IkpMl
II. EM Krto K InMol Ikpot
U. FMT«c
2& Dntfl<
21. BV> D»»to a «nlnalini M^*
U FM«
®
Q
®
I' ® I
@
®
HGURE 1
SCHEDULE AND DURATION
FOR ULTROX SYSTEM DEMONSTRATION
n/n/Bsl Rtvgat tg/outa I nci-3.oif
PRC ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT. INC.
-------
ULTROX INTERNATIONAL UV/OXIDATION TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The Ultrox system uses oxidants such as ozone, hydrogen peroxide, and ultraviolet (UV)
light to destroy organic contaminants present in ground water. This process has gained
considerable attention in the field of ground-water treatment, mainly because the oxidants
destroy the contaminants instead of transferring them to another phase, as do air stripping,
granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption, and reverse osmosis. However, the oxidation of
organic contaminants by ozone, hydrogen peroxide, or UV radiation is known to have kinetic
limitations, and therefore, has yet to become a competitive treatment option. Several studies have
been in progress to overcome the kinetic limitations, and the findings of these studies suggest that
the kinetic limitations could be overcome by using two oxidants simultaneously.
The Ultrox technology is best suited for destroying organic contaminants, including
chlorinated hydrocarbons, present at low levels in water having low suspended solids levels.
This technology is currently being used at two facilities for the treatment of ground water
contaminated with trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, vinyl chloride, and various other
organics. The facilities are located in Kansas City, Missouri, and Monroeville, Pennsylvania.
In the Ultrox process, contaminated water is initially dosed with hydrogen peroxide
before it enters a reactor. Upon entering the reactor, the liquid waste stream is simultaneously
exposed to UV radiation and ozone gas, which creates a highly oxidizing environment for the
oxidation of organic contaminants. The off-gas from the reactor passes through a catalytic ozone
decomposer unit (decompzon) to reduce the ozone levels before being vented into the atmosphere.
Treated effluent flows from the reactor for further processing or disposal.
This technology can be used in either a batch or continuous mode, though it is designed as
a "once-through" system. Moreover, it can be operated either as a stand-alone process or as an
addition to existing treatment units (for example, biological treatment or carbon adsorption) for
pretreatment or final polishing.
Ultrox System: Process Equipment
The treatment system that will be used to demonstrate the Ultrox process is shown in
Figure 2. This system (Model PM-150) uses UV, ozone, and hydrogen peroxide to oxidize
organics in water. The treatment system has four modules that are skid-mounted and portable.
The major components of the system are the UV/oxidation reactor module, air compressor/ozone
generator module, hydrogen peroxide feed system, and catalytic ozone decomposition
(decompzon) unit provided to destroy any off-gas ozone. An isometric view of the Ultrox system
is given in Figure 3.
The UV/oxidation reactor has a wet volume of 150 gallons and is 3 feet long by 1.5 feet
wide by 5.5 feet high. The reactor is divided by five vertical baffles into six chambers and
contains 24 UV lamps (65 watts each) in quartz sheaths. These lamps are installed vertically and
are evenly distributed throughout the reactor (four lamps per chamber). Each chamber also has
one sparger that extends along the width of the reactor. These spargers are provided to
uniformly diffuse ozone gas from the base of the reactor into the waste water. Hydrogen
peroxide is introduced in the influent line to the reactor from a storage tank.
Compressed air is used as a source of oxygen for on-site generation of ozone using an
ozone generator. An air compressor and dryer are required to produce dry compressed air on-
site. Since about 3.5 gallons per minute of cooling water is to be supplied for the ozone
generator, an Ultrox recirculating water chiller will be used to minimize the amount of cooling
water requiring disposal.
-------
Commercial-grade hydrogen peroxide of known concentrations (about 35 percent) will be
purchased from a chemical supplier and pumped from a storage tank to the influent feed line.
An in-line mixer will be used to disperse the hydrogen peroxide into the ground water in the
influent feed line.
The catalytic ozone decomposer unit (Ultrpx Model 3014 FF ozone decomposer) is
provided to decompose ozone to oxygen using a nickel-based proprietary catalyst. The
decompzon (ozone decomposer) unit can accommodate flows of up to 10 standard cubic feet per
minute. The unit is rated to decompose ozone concentrations in the range of 1 to 20,000 ppm (by
weight) to less than 0.1 ppm.
Factors Affecting the Ultrox Technology
The factors that would affect the Ultrox technology are grouped into three categories: (1)
performance evaluation parameters, (2) operating parameters, and (3) miscellaneous parameters.
Each of these is discussed below.
Performance Evaluation Parameters -- Specific chemical constituents will be monitored to
evaluate the performance of the Ultrox technology under specified conditions at the LB&D site.
These constituents (performance evaluation parameters) include volatile organic compounds
(VOC), semivolatile organics, PCBs, and pesticides, present at the LB&D site. The influent
concentrations of these parameters will significantly influence the treatment efficiency of the
technology under a given set of operating conditions.
Operating Parameters -- Operating parameters are those parameters that are varied during the
treatment process to achieve a desired degree of treatment efficiency. Such parameters include
hydraulic retention time, ozone dose, hydrogen peroxide dose, UV lamp intensity, and oxidant
ration.
Miscellaneous Parameters — Since the Ultrox technology is an oxidation process and is intended
for the destruction of organic contaminants, any other oxidizable species present in the
contaminated water are considered an additional load for the system. These species are called
scavengers and include anions such as carbonates, bicarbonates, sulfides, nitrites, bromides,
cyanides, and so on. Also, metals present in reduced states such as trivalent chromium (Cr 3),
ferrous iron (Fe*2), and several others, are likely to be oxidized. In addition to this, temperature
and pH of the influent also will influence the Ultrox process.
Applicability to LB&D Site
The applicability of the Ultrox technology for remediating the contamination at the
Lorentz Barrel and Drum (LB&D) site was evaluated by EPA Region IX as a part of the
engineering evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA) and through a treatability study. The primary
purposes of the treatability study was to demonstrated that the technology could treat the
contaminated ground water at the LB&D site. The treatability study was carried out by Ultrox
according tot he specifications developed by Ebasco Services,Inc. (Ebasco, 1988). The ground
water obtained from two off-site wells was mixed in equal volumes and used to carry out the
treatability studies. However, the ground water used did not contain any PCBs, which were
found in the ground-water samples collected on-site by Ebasco. The treatability study used a 2-
liter reactor that was operated in a batch mode. The study indicated that the Ultrox process can
treat the toxic organics in the contaminated ground water at the LB&D site to meet the standards
for disposal into Coyote Creek. However, the level of nickel in the treated ground water
exceeded the effluent limitation for discharges t surface waters recommended by the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board. The study also identified the initial values for operating
parameters to be used in the demonstration testing. Based on the study's results, Ultrox has
recommended an ozone dose of 75 mg/L, a hydrogen peroxide dose of 25 mg/L, a lamp density
-------
of three UV lamps (65 watts each) per square foot of reactor plan area, and a hydraulic retention
time of 40 minutes for the demonstration (Ultrox, 1988).
-------
FIGURE 2
ULTROX SYSTEM DEMONSTRATION UNIT
-------
Treated OH Gas
00
i
g
H-4
O
W
3
W
G
H
O
X
1
2
Wkter
Reactor Off Gas
Catalytic Ozone Decomposer—-^.
Ground Water
from Wastawater
Feed Tank
TREATED
EFFLUENT
TO STORAGE
ULTROX
UV/OXIDATION REACTOR
Hydrogen Peroxide
from Feed Tank
SOURCE: Sued on Figure 1. Utrox. 1988.
-------
LORENTZ BARREL AND DRUM SITE DESCRIPTION
When the drum recycling operation started in 1947, the LB&D site consisted of 10.5 acres.
Since that time, the Lorentz family released half of the original property. The current LB&D site
is L-shaped and covers 5.25 acres. This area is suspected to contain the highest levels of
contamination. The contaminated shallow ground water underlying this area will be used for the
SITE demonstration program.
The LB&D site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of East Alma Avenue
and South Tenth Street in the southern portion of the city of San Jose, Santa Clara County,
California. A site location map is presented in Figure 4. The site is zoned for manufacturing
and is located just south of land zoned as residential by the City of San Jose. The residentially
zoned land includes Spartan field (San Jose State University football stadium), San Jose Bees
Stadium, and San Jose State recreation fields. San Jose State University student housing is the
closest residential area to the site and is about a quarter mile north of the site.
Site Characteristics
The LB&D site is nearly level. The slope at the site is from the southwest corner to the
northeast corner. The highest elevation at the southwest corner is 106 feet and the lowest point at
the northeast corner is 102 feet above mean sea level.
Coyote Creek is less than one-half mile east of the site. Coyote Creek flow rates are
regulated by the Coyote and Anderson reservoirs. An average flow rate of 45 cubic feet per
second (cfs) has been recorded between 1970 and 1983. A maximum flow rate of 5000 cfs was
recorded in March 1983. Zero flow rate has been recorded for short durations in the fall.
The surface water from the site most likely enters a 60-inch storm drain at the corner of
East Alma Avenue and South Tenth Street and flows to Coyote Creek under Alma Avenue. A
secondary 18-inch storm drain runs northwest under South Tenth Street and connects with the
60-inch storm drain.
The climate is characterized by warm, dry summers and cool, wet winters. Normal
January and July daily average temperatures are 49.5° F and 68.8° F, respectively. Annual
minimum temperatures are generally a few degrees below freezing, while maximum temperatures
in excess of 100° F are common. Normal annual rainfall in the area is 13.9 inches, most of which
falls during the months of November through April.
The water table at the site is believed to be approximately 20 feet below ground surface,
based on data collected in October 1986. Seasonal variations of the water table, the actual aquifer
thickness, and the hydraulic characteristics of the clay aquitard are unknown. As is typical with
water table aquifers, the shallow ground-water flow appears to follow the ground surface
topography, flowing in a northerly direction toward Coyote Creek, about one-half mile away.
Site Contamination
During the approximately 40 years that the LB&D site was used for drum recycling, the
site received drums from over 800 private companies, as well as military bases, research
laboratories, and county agencies in California and Nevada. Drums arrived at the site containing
residual aqueous wastes, organic solvents, acids, metal oxides, and oils. Wastes from the drum
recycling process apparently flowed from the processing area through an on-site drainage ditch to
a large sump in the northeast corner of the site. Prior to 1968, wastewater from the sump was
discharged to the storm drain system. Sometime between 1968 and 1971, the discharge was
diverted to the sanitary sewer. The discharge to the sanitary sewer stopped between 1983 and
1984. After that, liquid wastes were reportedly reduced in volume by evaporation, drummed,
-------
and disposed of as hazardous waste. Surface runoff was reportedly collected and used in the hot
caustic wash stage of the drum recycling process (Ebasco, 1988).
Since 1968, there have been many regulatory actions at the Lorentz site. The major
enforcement actions are listed below:
1982 - California Department of Health Services (DHS) investigated soil
contamination, resulting in a Remedial Action Order in 1987.
1982 - The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) investigated
ground-water contamination, resulting in a Cleanup and Abatement Order.
• 1985 - U.S. EPA and California DHS jointly investigated hazardous waste
disposal and handling. Expedited Remedial Actions (ERAs), such as drum
removal, were implemented.
• 1987 - The LB&D facility ceased operation due to a temporary restraining
order from the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office. U.S. EPA
assumed lead agency responsibility for the site remediation.
The preliminary site assessment report for the LB&D site (CH2M Hill, 1986) shows that
ground water and soil were contaminated with organics and metals. A limited sampling program
(LSP) carried out by Ebasco (1988) at the site verified that contamination was found in soil and
ground water; however, there was no indication that the contaminants originated from the LB&D
site. Samples of produce from selected residential gardens hydrogeologically downgradient of the
site and biota sampled from Coyote Creek showed contaminant concentrations at levels less than
Food and Drug Administration limits. DHS excavated and backfilled most of the identified "hot
spots" and EPA paved most of the site (Ebasco, 1988).
Remedial investigations carried out at the LB&D site by several state and federal agencies
indicate that the shallow ground water at the site is contaminated. Major contaminants include
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and pesticides at low
levels (CH2M Hill, 1986; Ebasco, 1988). To remediate this site contamination, EPA Region IX is
conducting a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) at the site. As part of the FS, EPA
has evaluated several alternatives for treating the ground water at the site and has selected the
UV/oxidation technology. Since the Ultrox technology has been successfully used to treat wastes
similar to those at the LB&D site, U.S. EPA ORD and Region IX decided that the LB&D site was
suitable for demonstrating the Ultrox technology. This demonstration will be mutually beneficial
to both Region IX and ORD, since the demonstration results can be used by Region IX in the
actual site remediation (the demonstration is scheduled to be completed well before remediation is
started), and ORD will have a site for demonstrating a new innovative technology. The results
from the demonstration program will be used in the remedial action design.
The shallow ground water at the site has been selected as the waste stream for
demonstrating the Ultrox technology. The maximum contaminant levels detected in the ground
water at the LB&D site are summarized in Table 1. This table shows that the ground water at the
site is contaminated with VOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and metals, while ground water downgradient
of the site is contaminated with VOCs. The organic contaminants measured in the on-site ground
water range in concentrations from 0.2 parts per billion (ppb) for chlordane (a pesticide) to 2,108
ppb for trichloroethene (a VOC). Organic contaminants measured in the off-site ground water
range from 0.5 ppb for chloroform to 311 ppb for trichloroethene.
10
-------
500 1000
• 3
SCALE IN FEET
SOURCE: Eboaco (1988).
CKEATEP:10/28/881 REUSED: 02/02/83 BARORUM.DWB
PRO ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, INC.
FIGURE 4
LORENTZ BARREL & DRUM (LB&D)
SITE LOCATION
11
-------
TABLE 1
GROUND-WATER ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY
(November 1983 to July 1988)
Highest Level Highest Level
Detected On-Site Detected Off-Site
Analvte (ooba) (ppbb)
Metals
Arsenic 4.0 ND
Barium 160.0 141.0
Chromium (total) 10.0 2.4
Cobalt 60.0 15.0
Molybdenum 20.0 NA
Nickel 130.0 72.0
Vanadium 30.0 32.0
Zinc 20.0 NA
Volatile Organics
Benzene 26.0C 8.0
Chloroethane 24.0 ND
Chloroform 29.0 0.5
1,1-Dichloroethane 85.0 16.0
1,2-Dichloroethane 270.0 20.0
1,1-Dichloroethene 160.0 86.0
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 750.0 56.0
1,2-Dichloropropane 170.0 19.0
Tetrachloroethene 140.0 19.0
Methylene Chloride 26.0 ND
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 140.0 ND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 220.0 34.0
Trichloroethene 2108.0 311.0
Vinyl Chloride 1100.0 72.0
Freonll3 41.0 NA
Pesticides
Chlordane 0.2 ND
Toxaphene 2.0 ND
Polvchlorinated Biphenvls 4.2 ND
Notes:
Source: Ebasco, 1988.
Phthalates were omitted from this table due to the unreliability of supporting data. (They appear
to be laboratory or field contaminants.)
ND = Not detected; detection limits were not given in the source.
NA = Not analyzed.
a Chemical data from monitoring well sampling on-site and nearby off-site.
b Chemical data from off-site Tracer Research mobile laboratory study.
c Estimated trace value.
12
-------
SITE DEMONSTRATION PLAN
Under contract to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research
and Development (ORD), PRC Environmental Management Inc.(PRC) and its SITE team
member, Engineering Science Inc., prepared a demonstration plan for evaluating the Ultrox
International Ultraviolet light/oxidation (Ultrox) technology. The demonstration plan consists of
four parts: (1) the introduction, (2) the test plan, (3) the quality assurance project plan that
includes the sampling and analysis plan, and (4) the health and safety plan.
Technology Demonstration Objectives and Evaluation Criteria
The purpose of the Ultrox technology demonstration is to:
• Demonstrate the ability of the Ultrox system to treat volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) present in the ground water at the LB&D site.
• Evaluate the effect of major process parameters on the Ultrox system
performance.
Evaluate the efficiency of the decompzon unit to decompose reactor off-
gas ozone.
• Develop capital and operating costs for the Ultrox system that can be
readily used in the Superfund decision-making process.
• Identify scale-up considerations.
• Develop information useful to Region IX for site remediation.
Typically, treatability studies are carried out to provide basic information regarding the
feasibility of the technology. Then pilot-scale studies are carried out, if necessary, before the
full-scale unit is installed. Treatability studies were carried out by Ultrox International using
ground water from the LB&D site, as previously described.
Ultrox will use a small (150-gallon) commercial-size unit for the field demonstration,
which will be performed during late February 1989 and early March 1989. The demonstration is
expected to last two weeks. The demonstration will be initiated using the doses recommended by
Ultrox, based on the treatability study results. These doses will be varied to determine their
effect on the performance of the technology. The demonstration may be followed by another
study, which will be performed upon ORD's approval, during the site remediation by EPA
Region IX. The objectives of the follow-up study would be to:
• Assess scale-up considerations identified during the demonstration and
design of the remediation system.
• Test the treatment system's performance reliability over time.
Assess the operating and maintenance needs over time.
• Verify capital and operating and maintenance cost estimates for the Ultrox
system.
The site remediation is currently scheduled to start in November 1989 and is expected to be
completed in April 1990.
13
-------
Federal and State Regulatory Requirements
Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARAR) have been identified for the
LB&D site based primarily on the proposed demonstration activities at the site. It is expected
that the treated effluent from the Ultrox system will be discharged to a storm sewer leading to
Coyote Creek. Federal and state ARARs regarding discharges from the LB&D site are given in
Table 2 and are based on sampling data available for the LB&D site. The regulatory, advisory,
and action levels for the treated effluent discharge include the maximum contaminant levels
(MCL) and MCL goals (MCLG), drinking water advisories, acceptable daily intakes, and
reference doses for carcinogens. These discharge levels will be used to evaluate the effectiveness
of the Ultrox technology.
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has agreed that the treated effluent
will be analyzed for 1,1-dichloroethane; 1,1,1-trichloroethane; and trichloroethene, and
discharged into a nearby storm sewer that leads to Coyote Creek. Similar arrangements regarding
air emissions are being discussed with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and Santa
Clara County Health Department.
Demonstration Program Waste Characterization
December 6, 1988, five monitoring wells were sampled at the site by PRC to collect
baseline data on ground-water quality regarding the need for system performance monitoring
during the demonstration project. Samples were collected from these off-site wells (MW-16B,
MW-18A, and MW-4 and MW-19), and two on-site wells (MW-4 and MW-5). MW-4 and MW-5
are located approximately 35 feet from the wells from which water will be extracted to be used
for the demonstration. Water samples were analyzed for selected metals, alkalinity, bromide,
total cyanide, sulfide, total organic halides, turbidity, phenolic compounds, volatile organic
compounds, semivolatile compounds, and PCBs/pesticides. The list of parameters which were
detected above their respective detection limits is shown in Table 3.
Demonstration Program Test Runs
During the demonstration, the operating parameters will be varied to determine their
effect on the performance of the Ultrox system. The experiments to be conducted during the
demonstration are summarized in Table 4. This experimental program takes into account
hydraulic retention time, oxidant doses and ratios, and influent pH. The experimental program is
also designed to determine if the data are reproducible. To meet the demonstration program
objectives, the data will be obtained in accordance with the following testing approach. To
obtain these data, samples will be collected at the sampling locations described in section 4.0.
The experimental program will begin with the operating conditions recommended based
on the treatability study carried out by Ultrox for the treatment of ground water from the LB&D
site. Then, one parameter at a time will be varied ±50% while holding the others constant to
evaluate its effect on the system performance. After the first three runs, the best value for that
parameter will be determined based on the VOC removal levels. The change in concentration of
selected VOC indicator parameters will be used to indicate the treatment efficiency of the Ultrox
system. After the best value for a particular parameter is determined, that value will be held
constant, while the other parameters are varied. Once the best values are determined for all five
parameters (pH, retention time, ozone dose, hydrogen peroxide dose, and UV lamp intensity),
three runs will be performed in an attempt to reproduce the results obtained at the best operating
conditions.
PRC estimates that about 15,000 gallons of contaminated water will be treated during the
demonstration. Since the monitoring wells from which the samples were collected in December
1988 by PRC gave low yield (about 0.5 gpm), four additional monitoring wells of 4-inch
diameter are installed near the two on-site wells (MW-4 and MW-5). These new monitoring wells
have been found to give yields of as much as 5 gpm. The contaminated water for the
demonstration will be collected in two Shelter-Rite (a proprietary material) storage bladders, each
having a capacity of 7,500 gallons, before the demonstration begins. These bladders were
selected to minimize volatilization of VOCs, and are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) for potable water storage.
14
-------
TABLE 2
HJDGHAL AND STATH Of CALIFORNIA AHARS KM MSCHARGUS TO SURfACB WATOKS AND fOTWS
EPA Maximum
AnaMe
Le«cl(t)
EPA Maximum
Contaminant
Level
Goafc(b)
CA DHS
Drinking
WaicrAciioo
Lmb(c)
NPDES
Mtub
Araenic
Banuxn
Chromium (toul)
Cobalt
Molybdenum
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
X
1000
SO
SO
1300
120
U-Dichloroethene
Traw-lJ-Dichlomelbcne
1,2-Dichkjropropane
Tetrad*
3
100
Metbyleoe Chloride
U AZ-Tetndiloroeihane
1,1 ,l-Tricfalon>el bane
Thchloroelbene
Vinyl CbJoride
Ficon 113
200
5
2
CUofdane
Toapbene
Polvchlorinaled Bi
0
7
ID
6
0
200
0
0
0.70
20
6JO
44
40
200
100
zoo
inoo
0.0SS
BOO)
BO
BO
Health AOmona (0
POTW Acute
Waste Dncnarte 1 Day (Except Chronic
Requirement! (e) where noted) Non-Cancer
POP DUO nm*»
Chronic
Cancer
1000
1000
1000
2600
2600
10.0 (h)
10.0 (h)
IOA (h)
104 (h)
104 (h)
104 (h)
104 (b)
104 (h)
104 (h)
104 (b)
104 (b)
104 (b)
104 (b)
104 (g)
EPA NAWQC <«>
Non-
Cancer Cancer
ppb
0.00025
1400
1000 (10 day)
1500
120
150
2000
100
4770
740
2000(i)
90 (10 day)
34000
13300
140000 (i)
2600 (10 day)
63
500
OJ5
0.95
7
70
056
1940 (i) 0.7
5
200
18400
2J
0415
0421S
0431
04043
04002
0414
0.66
0.19
0.94
0433
0.8
0.17
17
Z7
24
040046
040071
040079
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
FUXOtAL AND STATH OF CALIFORNIA ARAKS POH DISCI IARGHS TO SURFACH WATVRS AND rOTWS
Soutcr. Bbaaco, 1988.
Nona:
Phlbalate* wen omilled from ihii table due to Ihe unreliability of (importing data. (They appear u> be laboratory or field oootaminanu.)
Blank tpacea indicate mere • no anting requirement.
(a) US. EPA Maximum rm...min.« Lunk (MCL): SO CFR 46902; November 13.1983.
(b) U5. ETA PropoKd MCLC: 50 CFR 46936; November 13, IMS.
(c) Drinkinf water aakM Irtdi recoamieadcd by Ihe California Department of Health Servioo. October 1987.
(d) Effluent limitation lor dtacfcarfe* to nirtacc mien rrromnvreVd by California Reponal Water Quality Control Board in Ihe Baiin Plan, November 1986, which n
currently being rrvned. Depending on cte-tpecUic Boon, bat available lechnotofy (BAT) may be required to tunher reduce ooncentratioM in the dttcharfe.
(e) IndiMrial Wule Diacbarge RegulaliOfM tor that Area Tributary to San Joae-Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant, November 1986.
(I) Drinkinf Water Heakh AoVworia bom US. EPA Office of Drinking Water Quality. Subject lo change.
(g) NAWQC: National Ambient Water Quality Criteria, U^. EPA 440/S46401, May 1986. (1CT4 oncer mk kveb)
(b) Pubttdy-Owned Treatment Work! (POTW) discharge limit on total chlorinated organic* • 10 ppb.
(i) Draft US. EPA Heakh Adnwry.
fj) Below detection.
(k) Interim timil only. Final umil to be ratablirheri on future birnaiiyi of Ihe treated effluent.
-------
TABLE 3
1988 GROUND-WATER ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY
Concentration8
On-Site
Volatile Organic Compound
Acetone
Benzene
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-trans-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes, total
Metals
Arsenic
Chromium, hexavalent
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Miscellaneous
Alkalinity, mg/1 as CaCO3
Bromide
Cyanide, total
Sulfide
Total organic halides
Phenolics
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2-Nitrophenol
Beta-BHC
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
Turbidity, NTU
MW4
ND (100)
ND(5)
8
16
ND(5)
17
68
36
43
ND(5)
10
920
51
ND(5)
7.9
ND (50)
13.3
ND (0.2)
ND(2)
515
ND (2000)
ND (20)
ND(IOOO)
NA
13
ND (0.39)
1-68
ND (0.006)
0.034
ND (0.012)
270
MW5
ND (100)
16
ND(5)
41
ND(5)
120
42
18
ND(5)
7
20
280
146
10
35.5
ND (50)
5.3
ND (0.2)
ND(2)
621
ND (2000)
46
ND(IOOO)
NA
150
ND (0.39)
1-68
ND (0.006)
ND (0.011)
0.186
60
MW16B
160
8
ND(5)
24
ND(5)
40
59
16
27
ND(5)
11
370
120
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND (50)
5.8
ND (0.2)
ND(2)
551
ND (2000)
ND (20)
ND (1000)
540
NA
9.33
8.55
0.21
ND (0.011)
ND (0.012)
95
Off-Site
MW18A
ND(IOO)
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND(5)
22
19
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND(5)
15
86
ND(10)
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND (50)
ND(5)
ND (0.2)
ND(2)
451
ND (2000)
ND (20)
ND(IOOO)
140
NA(2)
ND (0.39)
ND (0.045)
ND (0.006)
ND (0.011)
ND (0.012)
115
MW19
ND(IOO)
20
ND(5)
42
17
180
200
38
32
ND(5)
54
730
240
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND (50)
13.7
ND (0.2)
ND(2)
669
ND (2000)
ND (20)
ND (1000)
1000
NA(2)
ND (0.39)
ND (0.045)
ND (0.006)
ND (0.011)
ND(0.012)
9200
Notes:
Source: Engineering-Science, Inc., 1989.
a Concentrations are in ppb, unless otherwise stated.
ND = Not detected; detection limits are shown in parentheses.
NA = Not analyzed.
17
-------
TABLE 4
EXPERIMENTAL MATRIX FOR THE ULTROX SYSTEM DEMONSTRATION
Run No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12e
I3e
14e
Retention
Time
(min)
X8
X
X
1.5X
0.5X
Best
Best
Best
Best
Best
Best
Best
Best
Best
Ozone
Dose
(mg/L)
Yb
Y
Y
Y
Y
1.5Y
0.5Y
Best
Best
Best
Best
Best
Best
Best
H202
Dose
(mg/L)
Zc
Z
Z
z
z
z
z
1.5Z
0.5Z
Best
Best
Best
Best
Best
UV Lamps
All ON
All ON
All ON
All ON
All ON
All ON
All ON
All ON
All ON
Only ON in
the first three
chambers
Only ON in
the last three
chambers
Best
Best
Best
Influent pH
Unadjusted
Unadjusted - 1
Unadjusted - 2
Bestd
Best
Best
Best
Best
Best
Best
Best
Best
Best
Best
Notes:
a X = 40 minutes.
b Y = 75 mg/L.
c Z = 25 mg/L.
(X, Y, and Z values were determined by Ultrox International to be the optimum conditions
for treating LB&D site ground water in the treatability study. Additional runs will be
required if no change in the performance trend is observed. The design of additional runs
will use the information reported in the literature. The proposed test conditions are subject
to change, depending on the results.)
d "Best" operating conditions are those for which the concentrations of effluent VOCs are below
the NPDES limits at the least cost.
e Verification runs to check the reproducibility of the data collected at the best operating
conditions.
18
-------
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
Sampling objectives are those necessary to produce well documented data that are of known
and reproducible quality and are defensible. Specific sampling objectives for the demonstration
of Ultrox technology are given below:
• Collect representative samples. The PRC SITE team will collect samples in a manner
and frequency to ensure that the samples will be representative of the media being
sampled (liquid samples: influent, effluent, and midpoint of the reactor; air samples:
before and after decompzon unit and at the inlet to the reactor).
• Conduct appropriate and necessary physical and chemical characterizations of the
representative samples.
• Determine the treatment efficiency. The PRC SITE team will collect and analyze
samples for the necessary target compounds so that mass balance calculations can be
used to determine the Ultrox system's operational efficiency. This includes
identifying and quantifying contaminants and products of interest formed during the
treatment process.
• Evaluate the effects of process parameters and scavengers on the system's
performance. The PRC SITE team will collect and analyze samples for oxidant
residuals in addition to contaminants and products. These efforts will include varying
the oxidant doses, the oxidant ratio needed to maximize OH° radical generation, the
pH, and the hydraulic retention time.
Sampling Locations
Figure 5 shows the locations at which samples will be collected during the demonstration of
the Ultrox system. Six sampling locations are identified, as summarized below:
• Influent after feed storage tanks. Liquid samples from the feed storage tank line to
the hydrogen peroxide feed point will be obtained to determine the waste characteris-
tics before the addition of hydrogen peroxide. Flow rate will also be measured at this
point so that the desired hydrogen peroxide dose can be maintained. Also, hydrogen
peroxide and influent feed rates are necessary to calculate the hydraulic retention
time.
• Midpoint of the reactor. Liquid samples will be collected from the sampling port at
the midpoint of the reactor to determine the analytical characteristics of the treated
waste after steady state is attained. This will enable the treatment efficiency to be
determined at a fraction of the total hydraulic retention time.
• Effluent of the reactor. Liquid samples will be collected at the outlet of the reactor to
determine the analytical characteristics of the treated waste after steady state is
attained. Samples will be collected from the sampling port in the effluent line.
• Ozone gas feed line to the reactor. Gaseous samples will be collected from a sampling
port on the feed line to measure the ozone concentration in the feed to the reactor.
Flow will also be measured to provide the desired ozone dose and gas flow rate.
• Feed to the decompzon unit. Gaseous air samples will be collected from a sampling
port on the feed line to the decompzon unit to analyze for volatile organics and ozone
in the off-gas from the Ultrox reactor.
• Effluent of decompzon unit. Gaseous samples will be collected from a sampling port
on the effluent line of the decompzon unit to analyze for ozone and volatile organics
in the off-gas from the unit. The results will be used to evaluate the decompzon
unit's efficiency in decomposing ozone, and to determine the extent of VOC stripping
in the reactor.
19
-------
Since the influent pH will be adjusted in at least two runs during the demonstration, samples
will be collected from the influent line after acid addition to determine the influent pH to the
reactor. This is necessary because the acid addition will be done in-line immediately after
hydrogen peroxide addition. (The acid feed tank and acid feed line are not shown on Figure 5.)
No samples are proposed to be collected to analyze for contaminants from the influent line to
the reactor after the addition of hydrogen peroxide, since it is unlikely that a significant level of
oxidation would occur in the influent line during the very short contact time (on the order of a
few seconds).
Before beginning a run, PRC will measure the ozone concentration and volumetric flow rate
of ozone to the reactor. The ozone regulator will then be adjusted to provide the desired mass
flow rate of ozone. The hydrogen peroxide concentration in the hydrogen peroxide feed tank
and the strength of the acid (sulfuric) will be measured to set the volumetric flow rates. Also,
the ground-water feed rate to the reactor will be adjusted before beginning a run so that the
desired hydraulic retention time is provided. The actual sampling phase will begin after a steady
state is attained (after three hydraulic retention times have elapsed since beginning the run).
Tables 5 and 6 represent the rationale for the sample parameters which were chosen.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Sampling
The PRC SITE team will use three basic types of quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
samples: spiked samples, trip blanks, and equipment blanks. Field measurements will be
duplicated, and equipment will be field calibrated according to procedures described in the
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).
Analytical Methods
Table 7 summarizes the methods to be used for analyzing the samples to be collected during
the Ultrox system demonstration. Most of the compounds will be analyzed using EPA-approved
methods, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, or the NIOSH
Sampling and Analytical Method. Exceptions include ozone and hydrogen peroxide in the
aqueous samples. Also, the NIOSH method has been modified to meet the project needs, as
described herein.
20
-------
O
X
23
22
z
O
ir1
O
O
>
H
O
Gaseous Phase
Sampling Locations
Liquid Phase
Sampling Locations
Rotamster
(typical)
Ozone Manifold
Needle Valve
Catalytic
Ozone
Decomposer
Ozone
from ozone
generator
From Shallow .
Ground-Water
Monitoring Wells
Hydrogen Peroxide
Feed Tank
Contaminated Water
Feed Tank (Bladder)
Treated
Effluent
Storage
Tank
^ Effluent
Sample Tap
-------
TABLE 5
RATIONALE FOR LIQUID PHASE SAMPLE PARAMETERS AT
VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE ULTROX SYSTEM
Sampling Location Sample Parameter
Influent (main
feed line from
the storage
tank)
Flow Rate
Temperature
PH
Rationale for Sampling
Influent wastewater flow rate and hydrogen
peroxide feed rate are measured to estimate the
hydraulic retention time in the reactor. Flow
rate of cooling water at the inlet of the ozone
generator is also measured. Acid feed rate will
also be measured for runs during which the
influent pH is adjusted.
Since the oxidation rate is a function of
temperature, the temperature of the influent
contaminated water will be measured.
Since ozone decomposition and the oxidation of
organic contaminants are functions of pH, the pH
of the influent waste must be measured and may
need to be adjusted to provide favorable
conditions for oxidation.
Turbidity
Specific
Conductance
Alkalinity
(HCO37CO32')
Turbidity is measured to determine if UV
transmission is limited. Also, this measurement
will serve as a reference when turbidity is
measured at the effluent sampling location, to
determine if any metals are precipitated resulting
in additional turbidity.
Specific conductance is measured to indicate total
dissolved solids content and ionic strength of the
waste. A comparison of the specific conductance
values in the influent and effluent will indicate
any change in total dissolved solids due to
treatment. Specific conductance is measured
instead of total dissolved solids because it can be
readily measured in the field.
Bicarbonate (HCO3~), and carbonate (CO32") ions
could act as scavengers for hydroxyl radicals
(OH°) generated during the decomposition of
ozone. The measurement of these anions would
explain the oxidant demand exerted by
scavengers compared to that exerted by organic
contaminants.
22
-------
TABLE 5 (Continued)
RATIONALE FOR LIQUID PHASE SAMPLE PARAMETERS AT
VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE ULTROX SYSTEM
Sampling Location Sample Parameter Rationale for Sampling
Influent (main
feed line from
the storage
tank)
(Continued)
Metals (ICP)a
Total Organic
Carbon (TOC)
Volatile Organics
Semivolatile
Organics,
Pesticides/PCBs
Hydrogen
Peroxide (from
feed tank)
Sulfuric Acid
(from feed tank)
pH, Alkalinity
(from influent
line after
acid/H2O2
addition)
Metals may be present in ground water in a
reduced state, which would be oxidized in the
Ultrox process. This might be of concern due to
the conversion to forms that are likely to be less
soluble (for example, Fe*2 to Fe*3 and Mn*2 to
Mn*4) resulting in poor UV transmission and
scaling. A comparison of total iron and total
manganese concentrations in the influent and
effluent will indicate the extent of precipitation
of those metals. Barium, nickel, zinc, and cobalt
will also be analyzed because no additional cost is
associated with their measurement.
The organic contaminants in the contaminated
water may be partially oxidized to organic acids,
or fully oxidized to CO2 in the Ultrox process.
Therefore, a comparison of TOC concentration in
the influent and effluent will help evaluate the
degree of organic contaminant oxidation.
These parameters are the critical performance
evaluation parameters and are measured to
evaluate their removal in the Ultrox process.
These parameters will be measured during the
final two runs best operating conditions.
The measurement of this oxidant will help to
determine the amount used during the oxidation
process.
The measurement of the acid strength will help
to determine the amount of acid used to adjust
the influent pH, if any, to a desired value.
This information is needed to determine the
decrease in alkalinity after acid addition.
23
-------
TABLE 5 (Continued)
RATIONALE FOR LIQUID PHASE SAMPLE PARAMETERS AT
VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE ULTROX SYSTEM
Sampling Location Sample Parameter Rationale for Sampling
Midpoint of
reactor (from
the sampling
tap)b
Effluent (from
the effluent
line of the
reactor)
Volatile organics
Semivolatile
Organics,
Pesticides/PCBs
PH
Turbidity
Specific
Conductance
Alkalinity
(HC03YC032-)
Metals (ICP)8
Metals (Total)0
These parameters will be measured at this
sampling location to determine removal levels.
These parameters will be measured during the
final two runs best operating conditions.
pH is measured to determine the need for
neutralizing the effluent stream.
The turbidity at this sampling location will be
compared to the influent turbidity to determine
if any precipitate forms in the Ultrox process
that could limit UV transmission and result in
scaling.
The specific conductance at this sampling
location will be compared to that of the influent
to determine any changes in total dissolved solids
concentrations.
A comparison of the HCO3~/CO32"
concentrations present at this sampling location
would help differentiate the oxidant demand
exerted by the scavengers from that exerted by
organic contaminants.
The sampling rationale is the same as for the
influent location.
These metals will be analyzed only during the
best operating conditions (runs 13 and 14) to
evaluate the need for any additional treatment
that would be required during the site
remediation by Ebasco.
24
-------
TABLE 5 (Continued)
RATIONALE FOR LIQUID PHASE SAMPLE PARAMETERS AT
VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE ULTROX SYSTEM
Sampling Location Sample Parameter Rationale for Sampling
Effluent (from
the effluent
line of the
reactor)
(Continued)
Total Organic
Carbon
Volatile organics
Semivplatile
Organics,
Pesticides/PCBs
The measurement of TOC concentration at this
sampling location could indicate if the organic
contaminants are fully oxidized to CO2 or
partially oxidized to organic acids.
These performance evaluation parameters will be
measured at this sampling location to determine
removal levels.
These parameters will be measured during the
final two runs best operating conditions.
Sample blanks,
Trip blanks,
Equipment
blanks
Ozone, Hydrogen
peroxide
Minerals/
Othersd
Volatile Organics,
Semivolatile
Organics,
Pesticides/PCBs
The measurement of these oxidant residuals will
help determine the amounts used during the
oxidation process.
The concentrations of minerals are needed to
determine compliance with discharge regulations
that the treated effluent is required to meet
during the site remediation.
Sample blanks are analyzed for quality assurance
purposes to determine contamination from
sample shipment or sampling equipment.
Notes:
a Metals (ICP): barium, iron, manganese, nickel, zinc, and cobalt.
b Sampling at the midpoint of the reactor provides additional performance data at a fraction of
the total hydraulic retention time in any one run.
c Metals (total): arsenic, barium, chromium, iron, manganese, nickel, zinc, cobalt, potassium,
calcium, magnesium, and sodium.
d Minerals and others: chloride, sulfate, and silica.
25
-------
TABLE 6
RATIONALE FOR GASEOUS PHASE SAMPLE PARAMETERS AT
VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE ULTROX SYSTEM
Sampling Location Sample Parameter Rationale for Sampling
Ozone gas
feed-line to
the reactor
Reactor off-
gas
Flow rate and
ozone
Flow rate and
ozone
Treated off-
gas
Volatile organics
Temperature
Flow rate and
ozone
Volatile organics
Sample blanks,
Trip blanks,
Equipment
blanks
Temperature
Humidity
Volatile organics
Flow rate and ozone are measured to determine
the mass flow rate of ozone to the reactor. Mass
flow rate will be used to estimate the ozone dose.
Ozone will be measured to determine the amount
of ozone carried over from the head space of the
reactor.
Flow rate will be estimated from the treated off-
gas flow rate. Both results are combined to
determine the mass flow rate of ozone to the
decompzon unit.
Volatile organics are measured to estimate the
amount of volatile organic emissions from the
reactor.
Temperature will be measured so that the flow
rate at this location can be calculated using the
ideal gas law.
Flow rate and ozone are measured to estimate the
efficiency of the decompzon unit in removing
ozone and the mass of ozone emitted to the
atmosphere per unit time.
Volatile organics are measured to determine the
amount of emissions per unit time. This would
help in assessing the need for a volatile organics
destruction unit. Also, the removal of volatile
organics, if any, in the decompzon unit can be
estimated.
Temperature measurement at this location is
needed to calculate the reactor off-gas flow rate,
since that flow rate can not be measured directly.
Humidity will be measured since moisture
content may effect VOC sampling by NIOSH
methods.
Sample blanks are analyzed for quality assurance
purposes to determine contamination from
sample shipment and decontaminating sampling
equipment.
26
-------
TABLE 7
ANALYTICAL METHODS
(Sheet 1 of 3)
Analvte8
Alkalinity
Arsenic
BNA
(Semivolatiles)
Chromium (Cr6*)
Metals
(Barium, Cobalt,
Iron, Manganese,
Nickel, Zinc,
Potassium, Calcium,
Magnesium, and
Sodium)
Ozone
Ozone
PH
Method
Matrixb Typec
L F
L Lab.
L Lab.
L Lab.
Lab.
L F
A F
L F
Method
Reference
MCAWW 310.1d
SW-846 7060e
SW-846 8270e
SW-846 7195e
Chloride
Chromium
Conductivity
Hydrogen Peroxide
L
L
L
L
Lab.
Lab.
F
F
SM 4299
SW-846-7191*
or
SW-846-6010
SW-846 9050*
Boltz et al.
(1979)f
SW-846 6010*
Bader and Hoigne
(1982)h
40 CFR Part 50
Title
Alkalinity
Arsenic by Furnace
Technique
GC/MS for
Semivplatile
Organics
Hexavalent Chromium
by AAS
Ion Chromatography
Chromium by
Furnace Technique
Conductivity
Titanium Method
Metals by ICP
Ozone by Indigo
Method
Ultraviolet
Photometric
Procedure
MCAWW 150.1d pH
27
-------
TABLE 7 (Continued)
ANALYTICAL METHODS
(Sheet 2 of 3)
Analvte8
Pesticides/PCBs
Silica
Sulfate
Temperature
Total Organic
Turbidity
Volatile Organics
Matrixb
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Method
Tvpec
Lab.
Lab.
Lab.
F
Lab.
F
Lab.
Method
Reference
SW-846 8080e
SW-846 6010e
SM 4299
MCAWW 170.1d
SM 505B9
MCAWW 180.1d
SW-846 8010
and 8020e
Volatile Organics
Volatile Organics:
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Benzene
1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethane
Acetone
Lab.
SW-846 8240*
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Lab.
Lab.
Lab.
Lab.
Lab.
Lab.
Lab.
Lab.
Lab.
NIOSH 1007J
NIOSH 101 5 j
NIOSH 1003j
NIOSH 1003j
NIOSH 1003j
NIOSH 1022j
NIOSH 1500j
NIOSH 1019j
NIOSH 1300j
Title
Organochlorine
Pesticides & PCBs
Metals by ICP
Ion Chromatography
Temperature
Pursulfate-
Carbon Oxidation and
IR Detection
Turbidity
GC for Volatile
Organics
GC/MS for Volatile
Organics
NIOSH Method for
VOCs in Air
28
-------
TABLE 7
ANALYTICAL METHODS
(Sheet 3 of 3)
Notes:
BNA = Base, neutral, and acid extractable semivolatile organics
PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls
L = Liquid
A = Air
F = Field Method
Lab. = Laboratory Method
Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA-600/4-79-020, revised
March 1983, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, U.S.
EPA, 1983, and subsequent EPA-600/4 Technical Additions thereto.
Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Volumes 1A-1C: Laboratory Manual,
Physical/Chemical Methods; and Volume II: Field Manual, Physical/Chemical Methods,
SW-846, Third Edition, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. EPA, Document Control No. 995-
001-00000-1, 1986.
Boltz, et al., Hydrogen Peroxide, Chlorimetric Determination of Nonmetals, John Wiley &
Sons, 1979, 301-303.
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, Sixteenth Edition,
APHA, AWWA, and WPCF, 1985.
Bader, A., and Hoigne, J., Determination of Ozone in Water by Indigo Method, Ozone
Science and Engineering, 4:169 (1982).
The National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR Part 50,
Appendix D -- Measurement of Ozone in the Atmosphere.
NIOSH, Manual of Analytical Methods, Third Edition, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Resources, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 84-100, 1984.
29
------- |