REMEDIATION SYSTEM EVALUATION
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL SUPERFUND SITE
GLEN COVE, NEW YORK
Report of the Remediation System Evaluation,
Site Visit Conducted at the Mattiace Petrochemical Superfund Site
March 29-3 0,2001
Final Report Submitted to Region 2
July 27, 2001
-------
NOTICE
Work described herein was performed by GeoTrans, Inc. (GeoTrans) and the United States Army Corps
of Engineers (USAGE) for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Work conducted by
GeoTrans, including preparation of this report, was performed under Dynamac Contract No. 68-C-99-
256, Subcontract No. 91517. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document (EPA 542-R-02-008i) may be downloaded from EPA's Technology Innovation Office
website at www.epa.gov/tio or www.cluin.org/rse.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Mattiace Petrochemical Superfund Site, located in an industrial area near the harbor of Glen Cove, is
approximately 1.9 acres and has extensive soil and groundwater contamination of volatile organic
compounds stemming from the operations of a former solvent storage and distribution company. The
initial remedial investigation of the site uncovered a number of buried storage tanks, drums, lagoons and
truck that at one time contained solvents. Current remediation actions include operable unit three (OU3),
which is a pump-and-treat system for treating groundwater, and operable unit four (OU4), which is a soil
vapor extraction system for treating contaminated soils. The goals of these operable units are both
containment of the contaminants and restoration of the aquifer.
Both units became operational and functional in June 1999 with one groundwater extraction well, six soil
vapor extraction wells, five dual phase vapor extraction wells, and 20 nested vapor extraction wells.
Since operation, two additional groundwater extraction wells have been added.
In general, the RSE team found a well-operated system. Recommendations to improve system
effectiveness include the following:
• The capture zones for the groundwater extraction wells should be analyzed to ensure that
additional contamination is not migrating offsite.
• The contaminant plume, especially to the north of the site, should be delineated to ensure it is not
migrating toward the residential area and to help provide a more accurate target capture zone for
the groundwater extraction wells.
• The hydrogeology of the site should also be investigated to determine a more effective location
for discharging water from the treatment plant. The optimal discharge location would be to
surface water or downgradient reinjection rather than the current reinjection wells.
These recommendations might require approximately $41,000 in capital costs and might increase annual
costs by approximately $4,000 per year.
Recommendations to reduce life-cycle costs include the following:
• Replacing the thermal oxidizer with vapor-phase carbon with onsite steam regeneration would
likely save approximately $23,000 per month in utilities (mainly natural gas but also electricity and
water).
• The addition of a biological, fluidized-bed reactor would reduce the acetone and other ketone
concentrations thereby allowing less frequent changeouts of the liquid-phase carbon units and
saving approximately $15,000 per month in combined carbon purchase and disposal costs.
-------
• With the above reductions in monthly costs, the project-management/technical support costs could
also likely be scaled back from $20,000 per month to $10,500 per month or less.
• Weekly sampling of effluent and other process monitoring results in analytical costs associated
with the treatment system of about $10,000 per month. Approximately 95% of the effluent
parameters have met guidelines and may only need to be sampled on a monthly basis and some
process monitoring is redundant and can be eliminated. Savings of approximately $5,000 per
month may be possible assuming monitoring adjustments are approved by the state.
Additional recommendations for significant technical improvement include the following:
• The yield from the groundwater extraction wells is significantly compromised by biofouling.
These wells should be treated to improve production rates.
• Approximately half of the 31 vapor extraction wells are not producing due to condensate/water in
the piping. Repiping all of the vapor extraction wells with larger diameter piping and appropriate
regrading will not only enable these wells to produce, but will reduce the head loss through the
piping and therefore the electricity costs.
Implementing the recommendations to reduce costs would require initial investments, but savings from
operations and maintenance could offset these initial investments and the costs associated with
recommendations for enhanced system effectiveness and technical improvement.
A summary of recommendations, including estimated costs and/or savings associated with those
recommendations is presented in Section 7.0 of the report.
-------
PREFACE
This report was prepared as part of a project conducted by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) Technology Innovation Office (TIO) and Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (OERR). The objective of this project is to conduct Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs)
of pump-and-treat systems at Superfund sites that are "Fund-lead" (i.e., financed by USEPA). RSEs are
to be conducted for up to two systems in each EPA Region with the exception of Regions 4 and 5, which
already had similar evaluations in a pilot project.
The following organizations are implementing this project.
Organization
Key Contact
Contact Information
USEPA Technology Innovation
Office
(USEPA TIO)
Kathy Yager
2890 Woodbridge Ave. Bldg. 18
Edison, NJ 08837
(732) 321-6738
Fax: (732) 321-4484
yager.kathleen@epa.gov
USEPA Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response
(OERR)
Paul Nadeau
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Mail Code 5201G
phone: 703-603-8794
fax: 703-603-9112
nadeau.paul@epa.gov
GeoTrans, Inc.
(Contractor to USEPA TIO)
Rob Greenwald
GeoTrans, Inc.
2 Paragon Way
Freehold, NJ 07728
(732) 409-0344
Fax: (732) 409-3020
rgreenwald@geotransinc. com
Army Corp of Engineers:
Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive
Waste Center of Expertise
(USACE HTRW CX)
Dave Becker
12565 W. Center Road
Omaha, NE 68144-3869
(402) 697-2655
Fax: (402) 691-2673
dave.j.becker@nwd02.usace.army.mil
111
-------
The project team is grateful for the help provided by the following EPA Project Liaisons.
Regionl Darryl Luce and Larry Brill
Region 2 Diana Curt
Region 3 Kathy Davies
Region 4 Kay Wischkaemper
Region 5 Dion Novak
Region 6 Vincent Malott
Region 7 Mary Peterson
Region 8 Armando Saenz and Richard Muza
Region 9 Herb Levine
Region 10 Bernie Zavala
They were vital in selecting the Fund-lead P&T systems to be evaluated and facilitating communication
between the project team and the Remedial Project Managers (RPM's).
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
PREFACE iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 PURPOSE 1
1.2 TEAM COMPOSITION 2
1.3 DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 2
1.4 PERSONS CONTACTED 3
1.5 SITE LOCATION, HISTORY, AND CHARACTERISTICS 3
1.5.1 LOCATION 3
1.5.2 POTENTIAL SOURCES 4
1.5.3 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING 4
1.5.4 DESCRIPTION OF GROUND WATER PLUME 5
2.0 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 6
2.1 SYSTEM OVERVIEW 6
2.2 EXTRACTION SYSTEM 6
2.3 TREATMENT SYSTEM 6
2.4 REINJECTION SYSTEM 7
3.0 SYSTEM OBJECTIVES, PERFORMANCE AND CLOSURE CRITERIA 8
3.1 CURRENT SYSTEM OBJECTIVES AND CLOSURE CRITERIA 8
3.2 TREATMENT PLANT OPERATION GOALS 8
3.3 ACTION LEVELS 8
4.0 FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS FROM THE RSE SITE VISIT 12
4.1 FINDINGS 12
4.2 SUBSURFACE PERFORMANCE AND RESPONSE 12
4.2.1 WATER LEVELS 12
4.2.2 CAPTURE ZONES 13
4.2.3 CONTAMINANT LEVELS 13
4.3 COMPONENT PERFORMANCE 14
4.3.1 WELL PUMPS AND TRANSDUCERS 14
4.3.2 AIR COMPRESSORS/BLOWERS 14
4.3.3 PHASE SEPARATOR 14
4.3.4 EQUALIZATION TANKS 14
4.3.5 SLUDGE REMOVAL SYSTEMS 15
4.3.6 BAG FILTERS AND TRAY AERATOR 15
4.3.7 GACUNITS 15
4.3.8 THERMAL OXIDIZER 15
4.3.9 CONTROLS 15
4.4 COMPONENTS OR PROCESSES THAT ACCOUNT FOR MAJORITY OF MONTHLY COSTS 16
4.4.1 UTILITIES 16
4.4.2 NON-UTILITY CONSUMABLES AND DISPOSAL COSTS 17
-------
4.4.3 LABOR 17
4.4.4 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS 17
4.5 RECURRING PROBLEMS OR ISSUES 17
4.6 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE 18
4.7 TREATMENT PROCESS EXCURSIONS AND UPSETS, ACCIDENTAL CONTAMINANT/REAGENT RELEASES . 18
4.8 SAFETY RECORD 18
5.0 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SYSTEM TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT .
19
5.1 GROUND WATER 19
5.2 SURFACE WATER 19
5.3 AIR 19
5.4 SOILS 19
5.5 WETLANDS AND SEDIMENTS 20
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 21
6.1
6.3
6.4
6.5
RECOMMENDED STUDIES TO ENSURE EFFECTIVENESS 21
6.1.1 ANALYZE CAPTURE OF SITE-RELATED CONTAMINANTS 21
6.1.2 DELINEATE CONTAMINANT PLUME 23
6.1.3 FURTHER EVALUATE SITE HYDROGEOLOGY, IMPROVE CAPTURE, AND OPTIMIZE EXTRACTION
AND REINJECTION SYSTEMS 23
RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO REDUCE COSTS 23
6.2.1
6.2.2
REPLACE THERMAL OXIDIZER 23
USE ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PROCESS TO REMOVE KETONES AND REDUCE GAG CHANGE
OUT 24
REDUCE SAMPLING OF PROCESS WATER 24
SCALE BACK PROJECT-MANAGEMENT/TECHNICAL-SUPPORT COSTS ACCORDING TO COST
SAVINGS AFFORDED BY RECOMMENDATIONS 24
MODIFICATIONS INTENDED FOR TECHNICAL IMPROVEMENT 25
6.3.1 REHABILITATE FOULED WELLS 25
6.3.2 REPIPE SVE WELLS AND REPLACE SVE BLOWERS WITH SMALLER UNITS 25
6.3.3 REPLACE DAMAGED OR INEFFECTIVE EQUIPMENT 26
MODIFICATIONS INTENDED TO GAIN SITE CLOSE-OUT 27
6.4.1 ESTABLISH DATA NEEDS FOR ANALYZING PROGRESS AND PERFORMANCE 27
6.4.2 CONSIDER AGGRESSIVE MASS REMOVAL 27
DONATE UNUSED EQUIPMENT 27
List of Tables
Table 3-1.
Table 3-2.
Table 3-3.
Table 7-1.
List of Figures
Figure 1-1
Figure 1-2
Discharge criteria for Outfall 001
Discharge criteria for Outfall 002
Discharge criteria for air.
Cost summary table
Glen Cove, Nassau County, New York and the area surrounding the Mattiace Petrochemical
Superfund Site
Site layout showing select monitoring points and the wells associated with the vapor extraction,
groundwater extraction, and water reinjection systems. Wells with significant contaminant
concentrations are indicated.
VI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
In the OSWER Directive No. 9200.0-33, Transmittal of Final FYOO - FY01 Superfund Reforms
Strategy, dated July 7,2000, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response outlined a
commitment to optimize Fund-lead pump-and-treat systems. To fulfill this commitment, the US
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Technology Innovation Office (TIO) and Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), through a nationwide project, is assisting the ten EPA
Regions in evaluating their Fund-lead operating pump-and-treat systems. This nationwide project is a
continuation of a demonstration project in which the Fund-lead pump-and-treat systems in Regions 4 and 5
were screened and two sites from each of the two Regions were evaluated. It is also part of a larger
effort by TIO to provide USEPA Regions with various means for optimization, including screening tools
for identifying sites likely to benefit from optimization and computer modeling optimization tools for pump
and treat systems.
This nationwide project identifies all Fund-lead pump-and-treat systems in EPA Regions 1 through 3 and 6
through 10, collects and reports baseline cost and performance data, and evaluates up to two sites per
Region. The site evaluations are conducted by EPA-TIO contractors, GeoTrans, Inc. and the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), using a process called a Remediation System Evaluation
(RSE), which was developed by USAGE. The RSE process is meant to evaluate performance and
effectiveness (as required under the NCP, i.e., and "five-year" review), identify cost savings through
changes in operation and technology, assure clear and realistic remediation goals and an exit strategy, and
verify adequate maintenance of Government owned equipment.
The Mattiace Petrochemical Superfund Site was chosen based on initial screening of the pump-and-treat
systems managed by USEPA Region 2 as well as discussions with the EPA Remedal Project Manager
for the site and the Superfund Reform Initiative Project Liaison for that Region. This site has high
operation costs relative to the cost of an RSE and a long projected operating life. This report provides a
brief background on the site and current operations, a summary of the observations made during a site
visit, and recommendations for changes and additional studies. The cost impacts of the recommendations
are also discussed.
A report on the overall results from the RSEs conducted for this system and other Fund-lead P&T
systems throughout the nation will also be prepared and will identify lessons learned and typical costs
savings.
-------
1.2
TEAM COMPOSITION
The team conducting the RSE consisted of the following individuals:
Frank Bales, Chemical Engineer, USAGE, Kansas City District
Dave Becker, Hydrogeologist, USAGE HTRW CX
Peter Rich, Civil and Environmental Engineer, GeoTrans, Inc.
Doug Sutton, Water Resources Engineer, GeoTrans, Inc.
1.3
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Author
US EPA
EBASCO
EBASCO
US EPA
US EPA
Foster Wheeler
Environmental Corp.
Foster Wheeler
Environmental Corp.
US EPA
NYSDEC
Foster Wheeler
Environmental Corp.
US EPA
Date
9/27/1990
4/1991
5/1991
6/27/1991
5/1998
11/1999
12/1999
1/4/00
2/01/00
3/2/2000
4/6/00
Title/Description
Record of Decision, Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc.,
Glen Cove, Nassau County, New York, September 27,
1990
Mattiace Remedial Investigation Report, selected sections
and Appendix A-5
Mattiace Final Feasibility Study, selected sections
Record of Decision, Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc.,
Glen Cove, Nassau County, New York, June 27, 1991
Li Tungsten Remedial Investigation Report monitoring
data
Final Long Term Remedial Action Work Plan, Operable
Units 3 and 4, Mattiace Petrochemical Site, Glen Cove,
Nassau County, New York
Operations and Maintenance Manual for Long Term
Remedial Action, Mattiace Petrochemical Site, Glen
Cove, Nassau County, New York
Memo - from Robert Alvey to Ed Als (Draft Long Term
Remedial Action Plan Comments)
Memo - from Carl Hoffman to Mike Mason
Hydrogeologic Data Letter Report from Marlene B.
Lindhardt to Ed Als
Memo - from Robert Alvey to Ed Als (Hydrogeologic
Data Letter Comments)
-------
Author
Foster Wheeler
Environmental Corp.
Foster Wheeler
Environmental Corp.
Foster Wheeler
Environmental Corp.
Woodard and Curran
Foster Wheeler
Environmental Corp.
Foster Wheeler
Environmental Corp.
Date
7/2000
7/2000
9/2000
10/2000
2/15/2001
2/15/2001
Title/Description
Long Term Remedial Action Corrective Action Plan for
Operable Units 3 and 4, Mattiace Petrochemical Site,
Glen Cove, Nassau County, New York
Operable Units 3 and 4 Effectiveness/Environmental
Monitoring Data Report, Mattiace Petrochemical Site,
Glen Cove, Nassau County, New York
Interim Remedial Action Report for Operable Units 3 and
4, Groundwater and in-situ Vacuum Extraction Treatment
System, Mattiace Petrochemical Site, Glen Cove, Nassau
County, New York
Mattiace Petrochemical Superfund Site, Validated Data,
Sample Delivery Group, 10/3/2000, 10/4/2000, 10/11/2000,
10/18/2000, 10/26/2000.
Operation and Maintenance Report for the month of
September 2000
Operation and Maintenance Report for the month of
October 2000
1.4
PERSONS CONTACTED
The following individuals were present for the site visit:
Kathy Yager, EPA Technology Innovation Office
Edward Als,, RPM, EPA Region 2
Rob Alvey, Hydrogeologist, EPA Region 2
Diana Curt, Project Liaison, EPA Region 2
Dave Dedian, Operations Project Manager, Woodard and Curran
Lou, Plant Operator, Woodard and Curran
Paul McCusker, Plant Operator, Woodard and Curran
Karuppenan Subburamu, Project Manager, Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp.
1.5
1.5.1
SITE LOCATION, HISTORY, AND CHARACTERISTICS
LOCATION
The Mattiace Petrochemical Superfund Site is approximately 1.9 acres and is located in an industrial area
along the harbor of Glen Cove, New York. The treatment processes at the site address contamination
from volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) contamination
-------
from the former Mattiace Petrochemical Company. The site is bordered on the east and south by LUND
Industries and Medallion Oil Company, on the west by Circle Lubricant and other tenants, and to the north
by a wooded hillside that slopes up to a residential area. The Li Tungsten Superfund Site is located
upgradient to the east. Both Glen Cove Creek 500 feet to the south and Hempstead Harbor
approximately 1500 feet to the west lie downgradient of the site. A redevelopment project is underway to
convert industrial units along the waterfront downgradient of the site into condominiums and shops, and
Garvies Point Preserve lies beyond the industrial area to the north and west. Figure 1-1 shows the
location of the site and the area surrounding it.
The site currently is divided into two operable units, OU3 and OU4, which began operation in June 1999.
OU3 is a pump-and-treat system that addresses groundwater contamination, and OU4 is a soil vapor
extraction system that addresses contamination in the vadose zone.
1.5.2 POTENTIAL SOURCES
VOC and SVOC contamination of the soils and groundwater resulted from the daily operations of storing,
blending, and repackaging solvents at the former Mattiace Petrochemical Company that operated from
the mid-1960s to September 1987. Onsite sources of contamination included both unintentional spills and
leaks and intentional releases of organic solvents from drums, underground storage tanks, lagoons, and a
buried truck. In a removal action completed in June 1998, approximately 100,000 gallons of hazardous
substances were removed from storage tanks and drums at the site. Contamination in the form of light
non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) was found both during the Remedial Investigation in 1991 and again
in sampling conducted in January 2000. This LNAPL offers a continual source of dissolved phase
contamination. A temporary extraction system (OU6) was installed to remove LNAPL from the site
prior to operation of the soil vapor and groundwater extraction system in June 1999. Although all of the
LNAPL was not removed by OU6, the current pump-and-treat system has not recovered any LNAPL.
1.5.3 HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING
Groundwater contamination is limited to the Upper Glacial formation which is confined below by the
Raritan Clay and Port Washington Confining Unit that extend 50 feet or more in depth. The water table
is approximately 30 feet below land surface and the saturated zone of the Upper Glacial formation is
approximately 30 feet deep in the northern half of the site and as possibly less than 10 feet deep in the
southern half of the site. A rise in the Raritan Clay nearly separates the saturated glacial deposits on the
northern half of the site from those on the southern half Groundwater gradients at the site generally
result in flow to the west, but in the southern quarter of the site groundwater flows to the south. The
vertical extent of the glacial deposits and the elevation of the top of the clay are relatively unknown
beyond the boundaries of the site. Boring logs from MW-8d, however, indicate the clay elevation at
approximately 5 feet below mean sea level, which is approximately 10 feet higher than the clay elevation
measured from the DVE-3 boring on the northern edge of the site. Local geological cross-sections
indicate that the elevation of the Port Washington Confining Unit continues to rise to the north and
approaches near mean sea level.
-------
1.5.4 DESCRIPTION OF GROUND WATER PLUME
Groundwater and soil contamination occupies a majority of the subsurface underlying the 1.9 acre area of
the former Mattiace Petrochemical Company property with "hot spots" occurring 1) halfway between the
treatment plant building and the northern boundary of the site and 2) in the southeastern corner of the site.
The northern "hot spot" includes many VOCs and SVOCs including PCE, TCE, ethylbenzene, methylene
chloride, xylenes, and 1,2 dichlorobenzene. The "hot spot" in the southeastern corner is predominantly
xylenes. The July-2000 report on sampling conducted in January through April of 2000 documents
detectable concentrations of 29 of the 34 VOCs analyzed.
In addition to onsite contamination, contamination has migrated offsite to the west, southwest, southeast,
and to the north. This migration is evident from the results of the sampling program conducted in January
through April 2000 and reported in the July 2000 sampling report. To the north, MW-10 had
concentrations as high as 22,000 ug/L of TCE and 23,000 ug/L of xylenes, and LNAPL was found in
MW-10 and MW-7s. Also, a monitoring well associated with the Li Tungsten site to the northeast has
concentrations of tetrachlorethylene and trichlorethylene, contaminants associated with the Mattiace
Petrochemical Site but not associated with operations at Li Tungsten. Monitoring wells to the west of the
site also show contaminant migration extending over 100 feet from the site. Another sampling program
was conducted during the winter of 2000 to 2001, but this data was not available at the time of the RSE.
The project manager and plant operators, however, mentioned detectable concentrations in the now-
inactive reinjection wells to the north of the site.
Figure 1-2 shows the various areas of contamination at the site and the wells associated with the vapor
extraction, groundwater extraction, and reinjection systems.
-------
2.0 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
2.1 SYSTEM OVERVIEW
The system consists of an extraction, a treatment, and a reinjection system to address VOC and SVOC
contamination of the subsurface. At the time of the RSE, the plant had removed a total of 25,000 pounds
of contaminants since operation began and was removing approximately 500 pounds per month. Both
treated groundwater and water from the city used for quenching of a thermal oxidizer were reinjected
through the reinjection system. Thus, approximately double the amount of water that is extracted from
the subsurface is reinjected.
2.2 EXTRACTION SYSTEM
The extraction system includes soil vapor, dual-phase (water and vapor), and groundwater extraction
wells. The soil vapor extraction system currently consists of thirty-one wells (six soil vapor extraction
wells SVE 1-6, five dual phase extraction wells DVE 1-5, and 20 nested extraction wells NVE 1-20). Soil
vapors are drawn into the system using a 50 hp blower for the dual phase wells and a 30 hp blower for
the soil vapor wells. The system currently draws approximately 500 scfm of soil gas. At the time of the
RSE, current operators estimated that over half of the soil vapor wells (especially on the south side of the
site) are not producing, most likely due to condensate/water trapped in the piping. The groundwater
extraction system originally consisted of a single extraction well, but over time, two additional wells were
added to improve production rates including converting a reinjection well (R-4) into a groundwater
extraction well (PW-4). Also, six of the vapor phase wells are used to extract groundwater, but the yields
are typically around 0.1 gpm in each of these wells. As a whole, groundwater is extracted at
approximately 10 gpm.
2.3 TREATMENT SYSTEM
The groundwater system is designed to treat 22 gpm with an influent solvent concentration in the high
mg/1 range. The system consists of a phase separator, metals removal, sand filter, bag filter, heat
exchanger, tray aerator, and GAC. The process vapors from the tray aerators are mixed with the
extracted soil vapors and vented to a thermal oxidizer. The operations currently require daily bag filter
replacement, weekly GAC replacement, and weekly to biweekly cleaning of the system to remove a
biological slime extracted from the subsurface.
-------
2.4 REINJECTION SYSTEM
The reinjection system originally consisted of 10 reinjection wells located on the hill north of the facility;
however, one of the reinjection wells was converted to a groundwater extraction well to improve capture
to the northwest of the site. To reduce reinjection near this new extraction well, three of the reinjection
wells (R-l through R-3) were taken offline. Currently, only R-5 through R-10 reinject water. Because
city water is used to quench the thermal oxidizer, the plant discharges approximately double the amount of
water that is extracted. City water is used to provide cooling to the thermal oxidizer at a rate of 6-10
gpm.
-------
3.0 SYSTEM OBJECTIVES, PERFORMANCE AND CLOSURE
CRITERIA
3.1 CURRENT SYSTEM OBJECTIVES AND CLOSURE CRITERIA
The ROD stipulates that the pump-and-treat system will "restore groundwater under the Site to its most
beneficial use, which is as a potential supply of potable water". However, the ROD also mentions that if
contaminant levels cease to decline and remain above the cleanup levels, the cleanup goals can be
reevaluated. The remedy is to continue for an estimated period of 30 years. Goals for the soil vapor
extraction system are similar with cleanup levels at or below the target risk level of 1O6. The ROD also
stipulates a sampling program is to continue during the remedy and for a year after the remedy is
complete to ensure that contaminant levels remain below cleanup levels.
3.2 TREATMENT PLANT OPERATION GOALS
The current contract for operations calls for the plant to operate 24 hours per day, seven days a week
while treating water from the three extraction wells. Two plant operator attend the site for approximately
50 hours per week including weekends.
3.3 ACTION LEVELS
The air effluent from treatment plant must meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and State laws
and the water effluent must meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and State laws. The
plant has two discharge criteria for water detailed in the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(SPDES) Equivalency Permit issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC), one for discharging to reinjection wells to the north of the site (Outfall 001) and another to
discharge into Glen Cove Creek (Outfall 002). Now that the plant has reached the levels for outfall 001,
discharge to the creek (Outfall 002) is no longer allowed under the current permit.
Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 provide some of the discharge limits for water to Outfall 001 and Outfall 002 and
for air to the atmosphere. The discharge permit for the water effluent expires in April 2002.
The plant operators and site managers report that the state requires monitoring of all air and groundwater
effluent parameters on a weekly frequency if one or more of the parameters is beyond the limit. Thus,
although the facility has met discharge requirements since operation for over 95% of the parameters
sampling is still required for all parameters on a weekly basis rather than on a semi-monthly or monthly
basis.
-------
Table 3-1. Sample Discharge limits for Outfall 001 (reinjection wells)
Constituent
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
5-day carbon biological oxygen demand (CBOD5)
Benzene
2-Butanone
1 , 1 -Dichlorethy lene
Methylene chloride
1 , 1 -Dichlorethane
1,2-Dichlorethylene (cis)
1,1,1 -Trichlorethane
1,2-Dichlorethane
Trichlorethylene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Ethylbenzene
M+P-Xylene
O-Xylene
Napthalene
Acetone
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
2-Hexanone
Vinyl chloride
Sampling Frequency
Weekly
Weekly
Monthly
semi-monthly
semi-monthly
semi-monthly
semi-monthly
semi-monthly
semi-monthly
semi-monthly
semi-monthly
semi-monthly
semi-monthly
semi-monthly
semi-monthly
semi-monthly
semi-monthly
semi-monthly
semi-monthly
semi-monthly
semi-monthly
semi-monthly
Daily Max. Limit
20mg/L
1200 mg/L
20mg/L
0.7 ug/L
50ug/L
5 ug/L
5 ug/L
5 ug/L
5 ug/L
5 ug/L
5 ug/L
10 ug/L
5 ug/L
5 ug/L
5 ug/L
10 ug/L
5 ug/L
10 ug/L
140 ug/L
50 ug/L
5 ug/L
-------
Table 3-2. Sample Discharge limits for Outfall 002 (Glen Cove Creek)
Constituent
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
5-day carbon biological oxygen demand (CBOD5)
Individual Base/Neutral Acid Extractable compounds
(BNAs)
Individual Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
Sampling Frequency
Weekly
Weekly
Monthly
semi-monthly
semi-monthly
Daily Max. Limit
20mg/L
Monitor
20mg/L
lOug/L
lOug/L
10
-------
Table 3-3. Sample air emission limits to atmosphere.
Constituent
Benzene
2-Butanone
1 , 1 -Dichlorethy lene
Methylene chloride
1 , 1 -Dichlorethane
1,1,1 -Trichlorethane
1 ,2-Dichlorethane
Tnchlorethylene (TCE)
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Napthalene
Isophorone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (MIBK)
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachlorethane
Vinyl Chlonde
O-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorethylene (total)
2-Propanone
Di-n-butylthalate
Particulates
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen oxides
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorethane
Chloroform
Daily Max. Limit (Ibs per year)
1
197
187
769
319
2,173
11
994
105
1,279
365
1,642
79
56
92
99
153
5
700
214
6.8
263
13
2,190
460
86
12
80
11
-------
4.0 FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS FROM THE RSE SITE VISIT
4.1 FINDINGS
The RSE team found a well-operated site and continuing efforts by the operators to improve the design of
the treatment plant. At the time of the RSE over 25,000 pounds of contaminants had been removed from
the subsurface with groundwater and soil vapor extraction systems. Approximately 500 pounds are
recovered each month, with much higher rates of removal having occurred in the first months of
operation. The observations and recommendations given below are not intended to imply a deficiency in
the work of the designers, operators, or site managers but are offered as constructive suggestions in the
best interest of the EPA and the public. These recommendations obviously have the benefit of the
operational data unavailable to the original designers.
4.2 SUBSURFACE PERFORMANCE AND RESPONSE
The groundwater and soil vapor extraction system are operating significantly below design parameters.
NVE wells 2, 3, and 4 located along the southern boundary of the site, DVE wells 1 and 2 located in the
northern half of the site, and DVE well 5 located along the western edge of the site are all pumping a
small fraction of a gallon per minute. Extraction from these wells is meant to drawdown the water level
adjacent to the wells to increase the effectiveness of vapor extraction. This extraction is not adding
significantly to removal of contaminants from the groundwater or containment of those contaminants.
Groundwater extraction wells PW-1, PW-2, and PW-4 (the converted reinjection well) cumulatively
extract approximately 9 gpm. Given a plant treatment capacity of approximately 30 gpm, this extraction
is less than optimal.
The performance of the groundwater extraction wells (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-4) and of the reinjection
wells (R-5 through R-10) has been reduced by a biological/organic slime that has contributed to the
fouling of these wells. While efforts will be made in the Spring of 2001 to remove the slime from the
pumps, the slime is pervasive and will likely repeatedly foul the wells in the future.
Approximately half of the SVE, NVE, and DVE wells have no established vacuum. This is likely due to
condensate/water collecting in low points of the relatively small (1.5 inch diameter) extraction lines.
4.2.1 WATER LEVELS
Water levels are currently gaged semi-annually and typically demonstrate groundwater from the northern
three-quarters of the site is funneled to the west whereas groundwater in the southern quarter of the site
flows to the south. It should be noted that LNAPL originally discovered midway between the location of
the treatment plant and the northern boundary of the site has apparently migrated further north and west,
seemingly against a groundwater gradient established by the reinjection gallery to the north of the site.
12
-------
The RSE team reviewed potentiometric surfaces generated from water levels measured in October 1999
and January 2000. The October potentiometric surfaces reflected two different pumping conditions and
used water-level data from the groundwater extraction wells in generating the surfaces. The
potentiometric surfaces generated from the January 2000 data did not reflect pumping. The October 1999
data and the January 2000 data were compared to determine the effect of pumping; however, given the
lag of two to three months and seasonal variations in recharge, this comparison may not be valid.
4.2.2 CAPTURE ZONES
The contractor estimates that the contaminants are 95% contained. However, clear and accurate capture
zones of the groundwater extraction wells (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-4) have not been generated. Those
that have been generated used water level data from the extraction wells which may overestimate
capture. Thus, the potentiometric surfaces analyzed by the contracted engineers and hydrogeologists
likely overestimate capture of these wells. NVE 2, 3, 4 and DVE 1,2, 5 also extract water. The capture
zones of these wells have not been analyzed, but due to the low hydraulic conductivity surrounding these
wells and the low yield, the capture zones are expected to be minimal. Also, reinjection into wells R-5
through R-10 of both the treated water and the city water used for quenching likely reduces the capture
zone of PW-4 and possibly spreads the contamination further north of the site.
Capture zones or radii of influence in the vadose zone of the soil vapor extraction wells have not been
measured or analyzed.
4.2.3 CONTAMINANT LEVELS
Sampling in January through April of 2000 suggest contaminant concentrations at the site have generally
decreased by an order of magnitude since the Remedial Investigation almost a decade before system
operation. At the time of the sampling period in early 2000, high concentrations were detected in the
groundwater extraction wells, which are located on the northwestern edge of the site, and in many
monitoring wells throughout the site. Concentrations of PCE and TCE in the groundwater extraction
wells range from 350 ug/L to 14,000 ug/L for PCE and 150 ug/L to 29,000 ug/L for TCE. Concentrations
of c/s-dichlorethylene (DCE) are also very high in the groundwater extraction wells, 32,000 ug/L to
85,000 ug/L, suggesting the possibility of reductive dechlorination of PCE and TCE. Extraction well
concentrations of other non-chlorinated VOCs, such as toluene and total xylenes are as high as 64,000
ug/L and 30,000 ug/L, respectively. The same sampling program showed that MW-10, located among the
reinjection wells to the north of the site boundary, had TCE concentrations of 22,000 ug/L and xylene
concentrations of 22,000 ug/L. In addition, LNAPL was found in MW-10 and MW-7s, which are both
located in the injection gallery. Wells PW-085-9-15 in the southeastern corner of the site had a total
xylene concentration of 12,000 ug/L. MW-5S, directly west of the site, had a TCE concentration of 8,200
ug/L, a total xylene concentration of 6,600 ug/L, and an estimated acetone concentration of 64,000 ug/L.
Additionally, MW-RD-02, located approximately 100 feet west beyond the southwestern corner of the site
had an ethylbenzene concentration of 130 ug/L and a total xylene concentration of 39 ug/L, which further
suggests that contamination has migrated from the site.
Thus, high concentrations exist throughout the site, and substantial evidence exists that contaminants have
migrated from the site to the north and west. Given the absence of capture to the southeast, contaminant
migration has likely occurred in this direction as well. Although the general aim of the groundwater
13
-------
remedy was plume capture and treatment, the remedy was designed to address the capture and treatment
of the highly contaminated groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the Mattiace property, and not the
less contaminated groundwater on the leading edge of the plume. The primary reason for this approach to
implementing the Mattiace ROD was the existence of several other plumes of contaminated groundwater
in the Garvies Point area that were unrelated to Mattiace, as well as the generally degraded condition of
the Upper Glacial Aquifer in the area of the creek, due to generations of industrial usage.
Contaminant migration in a northerly direction from the site is unexpected given the topography, measured
water levels, and injection of clean water to the north of the site. However, high contaminant
concentrations exist to the north of the site, and while other industrial facilities exist in the area,
groundwater sampling on those facilities does not indicate concentrations as high as those measured to the
north of the Mattiace site.
4.3 COMPONENT PERFORMANCE
4.3.1 WELL PUMPS AND TRANSDUCERS
Grundfos submersible pumps capable of extracting 5 to 10 gpm each are used to extract groundwater from
a total of nine wells (three groundwater extraction wells and six vapor extraction wells). Pressure
transducers are used in conjunction with a programmable logic controller to control the rate of pumping. The
transducers used at the site are subject to failure due to chemical attack of flexible seals where the cables
attach to the transducer body.
4.3.2 Am COMPRESSORS/BLOWERS
Two blowers are used for soil vapor extraction. Both are Roots rotary-lobe blowers with variable frequency
drives. One is a 50-horsepower blower that operates at 35 hertz and 7 inches of mercury and the other is
a 30-horsepower blower that operates at 65 hertz and 13 inches of mercury. Together, these blowers extract
a maximum of approximately 800 scfm from the soil.
Another 50-horsepower blower is used for the thermal oxidizer, and a 15-horsepower blower is used for the
tray aerator.
4.3.3 PHASE SEPARATOR
The phase separator was originally installed to remove LNAPL from the influent. Although LNAPL was
has been detected onsite as late as January 2000, no LNAPL has been removed by the extraction system and
the phase separator.
4.3.4 EQUALIZATION TANKS
The equalization tank stores extracted water that enters at approximately 10 gpm and stores this water so that
the treatment plant can operate in a semi-batch mode at approximately 22 gpm. The equalization tanks must
be cleaned weekly to remove slime extracted from the groundwater.
14
-------
4.3.5 SLUDGE REMOVAL SYSTEMS
Water from the equalization tank is adjusted to pH between 10 and 11. Then, a solution containing 0.025%
polymer is added at one gallon per day to remove iron from the extracted water. The resulting sludge is
removed and processed in an onsite filter press. The solids are reclaimed and an estimated 1500 pounds per
month is recovered. This sludge, with a water content of approximately 50%, is disposed as non hazardous
waste. The decanted water is returned to the influent sump tank for reprocessing. After the sludge removal
system, sulfuric acid is added to bring the pH to 7.
4.3.6 BAG FILTERS AND TRAY AERATOR
After pH neutralization, the water is filtered with a sand filter and then with two bag filters of 25 and 10
microns each. These bags are replaced on a daily basis. The water is then heated to approximately 120 F
before entering the tray aerator, which consists of five trays and operates at an air to water ratio of over 175.
This ratio and the temperature of the influent water to the aerator were increased to improve removal
efficiency of ketones (acetone, 2-butanone, and others) and methylene chloride. The current aerator does
not meet discharge criteria for many semivolatiles and the ketones.
4.3.7 GAC UNITS
The water exiting the aerators enters two liquid phase granular activated carbon units (GAC). These carbon
units contain 1650 pounds of carbon each and are the primary means of removal for several semivolatile
compounds and the ketones. The presence of acetone requires that the GAC be replaced on a weekly basis.
The operators have noticed that if the GAC is not replaced on a weekly basis that the pressure drop through
the system increases dramatically, possibly due to biological slime from the groundwater that passes through
the previous treatment system components. The temperature of entering water is approximately 105 F, which
is higher than ideal. The system should reclaim heat from entering water to reduce the temperature to below
65 F.
4.3.8 THERMAL OXIDIZER
The thermal oxidizer operates at 1500 F to destroy contaminants in the off gas of the air stripper and the
air from the vapor extraction system. The thermal oxidizer was designed for significantly higher
contamination loads. The current loading is less than 1.5 pounds per hour versus the design loading of 160
pounds per hour. Natural gas is used at significant cost to accommodate this difference between design
and actual loading. A flow rate of approximately 10 gpm from the public water supply is used to quench
the effluent from 1500 F to 400 F and the pH is neutralized.
4.3.9 CONTROLS
The control system was redone during the startup phase; however, there are several non-conventional
items that should be noted.
• The color convention for the control panel is unconventional (green means off and red means on).
15
-------
The valves in the compressor room for control of the SVE wells have handles that are incorrectly
installed (open/closed position of handles are reversed) and could cause a problem when
switching operators or during a process excursion.
The flowmeters on the individual vapor extraction wells are inaccurate and/or out of range and do
not sum to equal the total extracted flow rate.
4.4 COMPONENTS OR PROCESSES THAT ACCOUNT FOR MAJORITY OF
MONTHLY COSTS
Subcontractor operator labor $20,000
(50 hours per week) x 2
Contractor project management (for O&M only) $8,000
Contractor technical support (for O&M only) $12,000
Analytical (process water and air) $10,500
Analytical (monitoring wells) $2,500
GAC (replacement and disposal) $20,000
Chemicals $1,500
Sludge disposal (nonhazardous) $850
Electric $8,000
Gas $25,000
Water $2,200
Phone and cell phones $300
$110,850
4.4.1 UTILITIES
Natural gas accounts for over 70% of the utility costs. The monthly natural gas bill is approximately
$25,000 with $2,000 for preheating water before it enters the air strippers, $1,000 heating the building, and
$22,000 for the thermal oxidizer. Electric costs account for approximately 22% of the total utility costs.
The monthly bill is approximately $8,000 with $4,000 for the SVE blowers, $3,000 for the thermal oxidizer,
and $1,000 for the air stripper fans and remaining pumps.
16
-------
4.4.2 NON-UTILITY CONSUMABLES AND DISPOSAL COSTS
Non-utility consumables include granular activated carbon (GAC) and chemicals for metal precipitation. The
GAC, which is replaced on a weekly basis due to rapid acetone breakthrough, accounts for over 90% of the
non-utility consumable costs at $20,000 per month including disposal of spent carbon.
4.4.3 LABOR
Labor costs are associated with both plant operation (subcontractor), project management (contractor),
and technical support (contractor). The complexity of the system justifies the presence of two operators
each at 50 hours per week and a monthly cost of $20,000. Project management costs approximately
$8,000 per month and consists of one site visit per month, daily phone calls to the site, and submission of
required reports. Technical support costs approximately $12,000, and the details of technical support were
not disclosed during the RSE visit. The RSE team has typically found lower costs for project management
and technical support for similar systems.
4.4.4 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
Chemical analysis, for both aquifer sampling and process water, accounts for approximately 10% of the
monthly costs.
4.5 RECURRING PROBLEMS OR ISSUES
The following list identifies a number of recurring problems that affect the treatment and extraction
systems.
• Condensate gathers in the low points of the vapor extraction wells preventing them from producing
vapor. At the time of the RSE, approximately half of the 31 vapor extraction wells produced were
not functioning due to this problem.
• A biological slime, mostly in the northern portion of the site, is fouling the groundwater extraction
and reinjection wells causing the groundwater extraction wells to perform well below design levels.
This slime also repeatedly clogs the treatment system requiring the operators to clean it every few
weeks.
• Transducers in the reinjection and groundwater extraction wells are damaged as the interface
between the cable and the transducer disintegrates when in contact with the groundwater. The
operators have been salvaging extra transducers from reinjection wells to use for the more crucial
purpose of controlling pumping in the groundwater extraction wells.
• BOD and ketone levels are high in water exiting the air stripper. Because the efficiency of carbon
to remove these components is low, the carbon must be replaced on a weekly basis, a much higher
frequency than would otherwise be necessary.
17
-------
A number of other issues have arisen due to original design and installation flaws in the plant.
Although these items alone are not recurring issues, problems arising from design and installation
are recurring. The operators have replaced piping in multiple areas of the plant that was melting or
disintegrating due to high water temperatures or chemical compositions. In addition, they have
identified a number of wiring problems, some of which could have led to injuries.
4.6 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
Before officially becoming operational and functional, the plant had difficulty meeting discharge criteria for
total dissolved solids (TDS); biological oxygen demand (BOD), and various VOCs. The plant became
operational and functional in September 1999 and initially discharged into the creek via Outfall 002. By
September 2000 the TDS level in the influent had dropped below the discharge criteria for Outfall 001.
The plant is now discharging according to the more stringent criteria associated with the discharge wells
(Outfall 001). Now that the more stringent TDS criteria are being met, discharge to the creek is no longer
permitted.
The plant continues to have problems meeting the BOD requirements. Acetone, other ketones, and
possibly the biological/organic slime are likely contributing to the high BOD. To accommodate these levels,
especially the acetone and ketones, the plant operators are changing the carbon units once per week.
These more frequent change outs help meet the discharge criteria but at a high cost due to the low
efficiency of carbon to remove ketones.
4.7 TREATMENT PROCESS EXCURSIONS AND UPSETS, ACCIDENTAL
CONTAMINANT/REAGENT RELEASES
The plant has difficulty meeting the discharge limits for acetone and other ketones. The RSE team found
no record of accidental contaminant or reagent releases.
4.8 SAFETY RECORD
There have been no documented accidents, but the plant operators mentioned many safety hazards
associated with the original design that have since been addressed. Such hazards included wiring problems
and thermally or chemically inadequate piping for water.
18
-------
5.0 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SYSTEM TO PROTECT HUMAN
HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
5.1 GROUND WATER
The area surrounding the site is an industrial and commercial area that borders a residential community.
Given contamination of surficial aquifer and topography that slopes down from the residential community to
the site, it is unlikely that site-related groundwater contamination is or will adversely affect that community.
There is, however, a $300,000,000 redevelopment project along the harbor that will result in condominiums
downgradient of the site. Site-related groundwater contamination, if not contained, could adversely affect
this development.
Public water supply wells are located one to two miles north (upgradient) of the site beyond the current
residential area and are not affected by the contamination.
5.2 SURFACE WATER
Both Glen Cove Creek and Hempstead Harbor are downgradient of the site. While the creek once served
as a discharge point for the treatment plant, the water is now discharged to the subsurface through
reinjection wells. Given that contamination has migrated from the site, it is possible that in the future,
without sufficient containment, both the creek and the harbor could be affected by site-related
contaminants.
5.3 AIR
Site related contaminants are not a threat to the air. The thermal oxidizer does discharge to the
atmosphere but currently meets all discharge criteria.
5.4 SOILS
Surface soils likely do not serve as a significant avenue of exposure to contaminants. However, gaps in
the fencing do allow access to the site where there are other hazards, such as steep topography.
19
-------
5.5 WETLANDS AND SEDIMENTS
Wetlands or sediments associated with Glen Cove Creek or Hemstead Harbor are not currently affected
by site-related contaminants, but these areas are downgradient of the site. Garvies Point Nature Preserve
is located north and northwest of the site and may be impacted by the plume observed near the injection
wells.
20
-------
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 RECOMMENDED STUDIES TO ENSURE EFFECTIVENESS
Aquifer sampling data collected between January and April of 2000 and the 1998 Remedial Investigation
for the neighboring Li Tungsten Superfund site show high concentrations of VOCs throughout the Mattiace
site and beyond the site boundaries to the west and north. Additionally, based on the potentiometric
surface and contaminant concentrations, it is possible that contaminants have migrated offsite to the south.
Although multiple wells throughout the site extract groundwater in an attempt to remove contaminants and
prevent migration, it is unlikely that these wells are containing the contaminants. The cumulative pumping
rate for all groundwater extraction wells is less than 10 gpm. It should be noted that due to well fouling the
actual cumulative extraction rate of 10 gpm is significantly lower than the designed extraction rate and the
plant treatment capacity of 30 gpm.
Despite extraction from PW-1, PW-2, and PW-4 capture in the northwestern corner of the site is
questionable. Furthermore, capture is compromised by the injection of water through reinjection wells R-5
through R-10. Approximately twice the amount of water that is extracted and treated is reinjected through
these wells (the city water used for quenching is also reinjected). Although the contractors have analyze
potentiometric surfaces on a semiannual basis to determine capture, these surfaces were generated using
water level data from the groundwater extraction wells, and capture was likely overestimated.
Capture in the southern half of the site is also likely limited due to the tight formation and the low pumping
rates. NVE wells 2, 3, and 4 are each extracting approximately 0.1 gpm from the relatively shallow and
tight formation. Although new piezometers (PZ-2 through PZ-4) are adjacent to these wells and may
show capture a few feet from these wells the wells are located in a straight line along the southern
boundary in 50-foot intervals. Therefore, capture along this southern boundary is likely incomplete. No
groundwater extraction is occurring in the southeastern corner.
6.1.1 ANALYZE CAPTURE OF SITE-RELATED CONTAMINANTS
To determine capture, water levels should be measured monthly or more frequently from monitoring wells
and piezometers and not from groundwater extraction or reinjection wells. Furthermore, additional
piezometers, monitoring wells, and subsurface characterization are required to determine capture along the
site boundaries. The optimal locations of new piezometers, monitoring wells, and characterization should
be determined after further review of previous water level data and aquifer hydraulic conductivities;
however, a list of suggestions is provided below.
• To the north of the site, the Port Washington Confining Unit may rise in elevation and may provide
a natural barrier to groundwater flow and contaminant transport to the north. The subsurface to
the north of the site, however, has not been characterized to verify this potential barrier. A truck-
mounted geoprobe could be used to characterize the confining unit in the area that extends
21
-------
approximately 100 feet to the north of R-5 through R-10. To provide information about the
potentiometric surface in this area, two piezometers should be installed that screen the
contaminated formation, one of them approximately 50 feet north of MW-8s and other
approximately 50 feet north of MW-10. The optimal depths of these piezometers should be
determined based on the geoprobe results. It should be noted that access to this area may be
limited as it is heavily wooded and may be part of the nature preserve. For approximately $5,000 a
small geoprobe can be hired for two to three days and provide 12 to 15 samples. The two
piezometers can be installed for approximately $2,000 a piece.
In addition, semi-annual sampling should continue in monitoring wells MW-8s, MW-8d, and MW-
10, and semi-annual sampling for VOCs should commence in monitoring wells MW-7s and MW-
7d. If concentrations increase, especially in MW-7s and MW-7d, then capture is not adequate.
The analytical work for the additional sampling should cost approximately $1,000 per year.
• To the west of the site, one piezometer could be added approximately 20 feet to the north MW-5s.
This new piezometer, in addition to MW-5s and PZ-7, would provide a cluster of three monitoring
points in the same formation for determining the local horizontal hydraulic gradient. Hydraulic
gradients from water-level measurements of PW-OBS-50 and PW-OBS-20 should also be
analyzed. These gradient should indicate flow toward DVE-5 or PW-1 and PW-2 if capture is
adequate, and an additional groundwater extraction well may be necessary in this area if capture is
not adequate. The recommended piezometer would cost approximately $2,000.
Semi-annual sampling of monitoring wells MW-5s, MW-5d, and MW-RD-2 should continue, and
semi-annual sampling of VOCs in MW-RD-ls and MW-RD-ld should commence. The analytical
work for this additional sampling should cost approximately $1,000 per year.
• To the south of the site, two monitoring wells could be added to verify capture from NVE-2, NVE-
3. These two monitoring wells should be located along the southern boundary of the site or
preferably 10 feet further south (if permission is granted) and 30 feet on either side of NVE-2.
These two new wells should be sampled semi-annually for VOCs, and the semi-annual sampling of
MW-1 and MW-7 should continue. If concentrations in these wells increase over time, it is likely
that adequate capture is not provided. In this case, additional wells, or perhaps a collection trench
and sump should be installed to provide additional capture. Installation for each of the two new
monitoring wells should cost $10,000. The analytical work for semi-annual sampling of the two
new wells should cost approximately $1,000 per year.
• Even with the addition of these piezometers, a significant gap exists between groundwater
extraction through NVE-4 and DVE-5. Piezometers or monitoring wells may be required to verify
capture of contaminants between these two wells.
Water levels in the existing and recommended piezometers should be analyzed, along with sampling data,
on a monthly basis to verify capture. After careful analysis of the capture zones as determined from the
increased number water-level and concentration monitoring points, if the capture is still incomplete,
additional groundwater extraction wells or trenches may be required to provide thorough capture.
22
-------
6.1.2 DELINEATE CONTAMINANT PLUME TO THE NORTH
Sampling from January through April 2000 and the 1998 Remedial Investigation for the neighboring Li
Tungsten site demonstrate that contamination has moved offsite to the north and to the west from the
Mattiace Petrochemical site. Given the proximity of a residential area to the north of the site, additional
plume delineation is needed. A sentinel monitoring well should be installed 50 to 100 feet north of MW-8s
and sampled quarterly for VOCs to warn the site managers if contaminants have migrated or will migrate
further toward the residential area. The depth of this monitoring well should be based on the results of the
geoprobe work recommended in 6.1.1. The monitoring well should cost approximately $10,000 to install
and $1,000 per year for analytical work.
6.1.3 FURTHER EVALUATE SITE HYDROGEOLOGY, IMPROVE CAPTURE, AND OPTIMIZE
EXTRACTION AND REINJECTION SYSTEMS
Further evaluation of the site hydrogeology and pumping strategies should be done to optimize the
contaminant containment and cleanup. Currently, treated water and water used for quenching of the
effluent from the thermal oxidizer are both reinjected into the subsurface near groundwater extraction well
PW-4. For the month of October 2000, over 600,000 gallons of water were reinjected through R-4
through R-10 while approximately 326,000 gallons of water were extracted (mostly from PW-1, PW-2, and
PW-4). This proximity of the reinjection to the groundwater extraction wells likely decreases their
capture. In addition, high levels of contamination have been found in the reinjection area, and the
reinjected water is likely spreading some of that contamination further from the site boundaries. A more
optimal reinjection strategy should be considered such as discharge through Outfall 002, which is Glen
Cove Creek. While discharging water to surface water rather than groundwater may reduce the water
levels in the area, this will increase the portion of the subsurface addressed by the SVE system. This
alternate discharge location would require an adjustment to the permit which is up for renewal in April
2002.
As mentioned in Recommendation 6.1.1, additional groundwater extraction wells may be required to
enhance capture of the contaminant plumes. These extraction wells should be strategically placed based
on improved water level data collected from some of the recommended piezometers.
6.2 RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO REDUCE COSTS
6.2.1 REPLACE THERMAL OXIDIZER
The thermal oxidizer requires approximately $25,000 per month to operate ($22,000 for the natural gas and
$3,000 for the electricity). It is currently destroying less than 1.5 pounds of contaminant per hour rather
than the design rate of 160 pounds per hour, and this difference in vapor concentration translates to about
$6,000 per month in additional natural gas costs to operate it. The lower operating concentrations and the
high cost of operating the thermal oxidizer (partly due to increased gas prices) indicate that alternative
vapor treatment options should be reevaluated. At the current VOC mass, vapor granular activated carbon
(GAC) usage without onsite regeneration would likely offer only slight cost savings versus the oxidizer;
however, these cost savings would increase as concentrations continue to decline. At this point, the use of
vapor GAC with an onsite steam regeneration system would offer considerable operating cost savings
23
-------
even if the contaminant mass loading increased by a factor of two or more. The capital cost for an
appropriate unit is about $300,000; however, EPA may have units available from other sites that no longer
need them. Installation of the system would require about $70,000. Operating costs for the unit are mainly
labor, gas, and maintenance. Labor and maintenance costs would be similar to the thermal oxidizer and
gas costs for the required steam would be about $2,000 per month assuming daily regeneration. The
electric and water costs would also be significantly less than with the thermal oxidizer. A savings of about
$23,000 per month is likely, which in the worst case, would pay for the capital expenditure within three
years.
6.2.2 USE ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PROCESS TO REMOVE KETONES AND REDUCE GAC
CHANGE Our
The liquid GAC costs are very high, $20,000 per month, due to levels of acetone and to a lesser extent 2-
butanone and other ketones in groundwater well above design estimates. These ketones breakthrough the
GAC beds very quickly resulting in necessary change outs at a frequency of once per week or more. The
solubility of the ketones makes air stripping of them relatively ineffective, even with preheating of the
influent water. To remove these ketones, a different technology is necessary. Either a biological fluidized
bed reactor (FBR) or a UV/oxidation unit are possible alternatives. A proposal from Envirogen for a 15
gpm (25 gpm maximum) FBR unit was submitted in March. The capital cost of the unit is $170,000 with
about $30,000 installation cost; the operating cost was quoted at less than $l,000/year. Use of this unit
would eliminate or significantly reduce liquid GAC costs and likely eliminate the need for heating of the air
stripper influent, thereby saving at least $15,000 per month. This savings would pay for the capital
investment in just over 1 year. Another potential alternative is to discharge the air stripper effluent to the
POTW; however, this is not likely to produce the same savings as using the FBR, especially if the influent
flow rate is increased to about 15 gpm and this is likely if the biofouling of the wells is solved.
6.2.3 REDUCE SAMPLING OF PROCESS WATER
Analytical costs associated with the treatment system are about $10,000 per month. Most of the analysis
is based on NYSDEC requirements. They reportedly still require monitoring of all air and groundwater
effluent parameters on a weekly frequency even though over 95% of the parameters have met the
guidelines to be reduced to a monthly frequency. Discussions should be held with NYSDEC to reasonably
reduce sampling frequency of certain parameters. The plant operators analyze several air influent (NVE,
SVE/DVE, and total) samples on a more frequent basis than is useful. Analyzing certain process water
parameters such as SVOCs on a regular basis also does not seem to be useful (removal appears to take
place in the GAC only) and the frequency should be reduced. At the lower end, approximately $2,000 per
month can be saved; with some cooperation of the state, a savings of approximately $5,000 per month may
be possible.
6.2.4 SCALE BACK PROJECT-MANAGEMENT/TECHNICAL-SUPPORT COSTS ACCORDING
TO COST SAVINGS AFFORDED BY RECOMMENDATIONS
With the simplification and cost reductions mentioned in the previous three recommendations, a reduction
in project management and technical support is also expected. Currently, the project management and
technical support costs account for approximately 18% of the total monthly cost. The above
recommendations suggest a savings of approximately $43,000 per month which reduces the non-
24
-------
management/technical-support costs to approximately $47,850. For the project management/technical
support costs to equal approximately 18% of the monthly costs of the optimized system, the these costs
likely should be scaled back from $20,000 per month ($8,000 for project management and $12,000 for
technical support) to $10,500 per month ($4,200 for project management and $6,300 for technical support).
6.3 MODIFICATIONS INTENDED FOR TECHNICAL IMPROVEMENT
6.3.1 REHABILITATE FOULED WELLS
A biological slime is fouling the groundwater extraction and reinjection wells. The fouling of the extraction
wells is significantly reducing the extraction rates and possibly compromising their capture. Hach BART
tests can be used to identify the biological problem, and a rehabilitation method can be chosen that reflects
the results. The approximate cost for rehabilitation of each of the nine groundwater extraction wells may
range from $1,300 to $3,000 but could be as low as $400 to $600 if the plant operators perform the work.
As fouling issues may continue to arise in the future, it is reasonable to assume that preventative
maintenance on the groundwater extraction wells could result in additional annual costs of up to $10,000
per year.
6.3.2 REPIPE SVE WELLS AND REPLACE SVE BLOWERS WITH SMALLER UNITS
Approximately half of the 31 vapor extraction wells do not produce vapor, likely due to condensate
gathering in low points of the piping between the well and the treatment plant. In addition, the piping is has
a 1.5" inner diameter which creates significant head loss as air travels from the wells to the treatment
plant. This piping on all vapor extraction wells should be replaced with 3-inch inner diameter piping and an
adequate grade should be established to allow condensate to flow back into the well or a sump. Other non-
functioning wells may need to be replaced, especially if they are located in areas with high contaminant
concentrations.
Replacing piping as discussed above will allow the use of smaller, more efficient blowers thereby reducing
electrical costs. Cost savings associated with the smaller blowers will help offset the cost of repiping the
wells. In addition, there is $150,000 set aside for regrading of the site. Although the site grounds are
uneven, it is not apparent to the RSE team why they need regrading except for the steep topography along
the western edge of the site. After addressing this steep topography, this money could potentially be used
for regrading the tracks of the new piping for the vapor extraction wells.
Once the vapor extraction wells have been repaired, an evaluation should be conducted to determine the
capture zones and air throughput for these wells in the vadose zone and to determine the optimal extraction
rates for each vapor extraction well. Determining the capture zones may involve measuring vacuums in
adjacent monitoring wells that have screened intervals above the water level or the installation of small-
diameter probes. Determining the optimal extraction rates for each well would involve sampling VOC
concentrations in each of the well headers to determine which wells are extracting the most contamination.
Flow rates in wells with low concentrations can be reduced to accommodate higher flow rates in wells
with high concentrations.
25
-------
The purchase and installation of two 15-horsepower regenerative blowers with drivers and the repiping and
regrading should cost approximately $100,000, and the optimization of the SVE system may cost as much
as $25,000. However, these costs likely would be offset by savings in electricity of more than $2,000 per
month.
6.3.3 REPLACE DAMAGED OR INEFFECTIVE EQUIPMENT
A number items have been damaged or are ineffective at the Mattiace site, and they should be replaced.
The following is a list of some of those items:
• For wells that pump less than 6 gpm (after well rehabilitation), the Grundfos submersible pumps
can be replaced with pneumatic submersible pumps. Because these pumps only discharge when
full, installing such pumps will eliminate the need for transducers to control pumping with the
Grundos pumps. This would reduce the effect of fouling on the Grundfos pumps and reduce the
need for transducers, which have been failing due to disintegration at the cable-transducer
interface. Furthermore, these pumps would provide much more regular flow to the treatment
plant. As each pump or associated transducer fails, the pump should be replaced by a pneumatic
submersible one. In addition, if additional wells are used for extracting groundwater at less than 6
gpm, submersible pneumatic pumps should be installed.
There are currently a total of nine groundwater extraction wells extracting a total of 10 gpm. A
7.5-horsepower compressor will provide 25 cubic feet per minute of air and will be sufficient for
operating the new pumps. The compressor and the interior piping would cost approximately $5,000
and each pump would cost approximately $1,000. The current discharge pipes for each well can
be used, but airlines to each well are required and could cost as much as $4,000 per well if the
airlines cannot be run through the current electrical conduit. Thus, the total cost for replacing all
pumps should be lower than $50,000. Given that the pumps will be replaced as they fail, this cost
will likely be distributed over a couple of years.
• If the pumps are not replaced, as mentioned in the previous bullet, the current pressure transducers
should be replaced with another type that does not fail as frequently. The approximate cost of
each transducer is $1,500.
• The current program to replace the steel drop tubes in the vapor extraction wells with HDPE drop
tubes should be continued as it will reduce the need for heavy machinery for well maintenance.
Drop tubes in the SVE wells should be eliminated since their use does little to focus the extraction,
but the tubing contributes to the overall system pressure drop and thus electricity usage. The
approximate cost of the supplies for this recommendation is approximately $500.
• If reinjection is to continue through the reinjection wells (and not the surface water as
recommended in Recommendation 6.1.3) then flowmeters for individual recharge wells should be
installed. This could likely be done for $3,000 if the plant operators do the labor.
• The flow meters for many of the vapor extraction wells are currently reading out of range. In
addition, the sum of the individual flow meters does not add up to the total flow of the SVE system.
Measurement of the flow through these wells will be necessary when optimizing the SVE
26
-------
extraction system as mentioned in Recommendation 6.3.2. This could likely be accomplished for
approximately $1,000.
The security fencing around the site has a gap on the northern side, which faces the residential
area. This gap should be eliminated by installing a gate. This gate could likely be installed for
under $1,000 and would allow plant operators to visit the reinjection and monitoring wells offsite to
the north but would prevent trespassers from entering.
The steep drop on the western side of the site should be eliminated as it is a hazard. A small
portion, perhaps $5,000, of the $150,000 set aside for regrading could be used to this end.
6.4 MODIFICATIONS INTENDED TO GAIN SITE CLOSE-OUT
6.4.1 ESTABLISH DATA NEEDS FOR ANALYZING PROGRESS AND PERFORMANCE
There should be periodic analysis of progress keeping in mind site goals. The project team should sit down
and identify clearly the objectives of the system and the data they need to assess performance and
progress for each goal including capture, soil remediation, and groundwater remediation. The use of simple
geographic information system would facilitate aquifer sampling analysis and the progress toward cleanup.
6.4.2 CONSIDER AGGRESSIVE MASS REMOVAL
Given the small size of the site and shallow contaminant depths, aggressive mass removal may be
warranted. Once the vapor extraction wells are operating as designed and the extraction rates have been
optimized, the site managers should review the cost-benefit of six-phase heating and air sparging. Six-
phase heating would likely reduce remediation time for the vadose zone if significant concentrations of
VOCs are trapped in tight silt or clay lenses or if moisture levels prevent adequate air flow through the soil.
In-situ thermal treatment may be appropriate for the saturated zone as well. Air sparging would likely help
groundwater remediation especially in the northern portion of the site where the saturated thickness is
more substantial and there are fewer lateral barriers to displace the injected air. The SVE system, once
repaired, would collect the contaminant-laden air from the sparging. Although air sparging would increase
dissolved oxygen, which would reduce the potential for biological reductive dechlorination, concentrations
at the site are currently too high for natural biological processes to effectively remediate the site. Note that
periodic sampling for monitored natural attenuation (MNA) parameters would be useful to determine the
potential for MNA at the site after further remediation progress. An initial feasibility study without bench
or pilot testing could be done for approximately $25,000.
6.5 DONATE UNUSED EQUIPMENT
A continuous emissions monitor has been purchased but is not used at the site due to maintenance costs of
nearly $80,000 multiple times per year. This instrument may be useful at other government sites or may be
sold to recover some of the original cost.
27
-------
28
-------
7.0 SUMMARY
In general, the RSE team found a well-operated treatment system. The observations and
recommendations mentioned are not intended to imply a deficiency in the work of either the designers or
operators but are offered as constructive suggestions in the best interest of the EPA and the public. These
recommendations have the obvious benefit of the operational data unavailable to the original designers.
Several recommendations are made to enhance system effectiveness, reduce future operations and
maintenance costs, improve technical operation, and gain site close out. The recommendations to enhance
effectiveness include the installation of additional piezometers and monitoring wells as well as more
frequent sampling of groundwater quality and water levels to better define extraction-well capture zones
and plume extents. Recommendations to reduce costs include replacing a thermal oxidizer with vapor
phase carbon, using a biological fixed-bed reactor to help reduce the use of liquid phase carbon, and
reducing the amount of process-water sampling. Finally, recommendations regarding site closure include
identifying the data necessary to evaluate the system performance and the progress of restoration and the
further investigation of more aggressive mass removal. The table below itemizes all of the
recommendations as well as the cost (or cost savings) and reason for each one.
Table 7-1. Cost Summary Table
Recommendation
Analyze capture zones
Delineate plume to the north
Reconsider reinjection strategy
Replace thermal oxidizer
Use alternate process to remove
ketones
Reduce process monitoring
Scale back project management
Rehabilitate fouled wells
Repipe SVE wells and optimize SVE
system
Reason
Effectiveness
Effectiveness
Effectiveness
Cost
reduction
Cost
reduction
Cost
reduction
Cost
reduction
Technical
improvement
Technical
improvement
Estimated Change in
Capital
Costs
$31,000
$10,000
$0
$370,000
$200,000
$0
$0
$5,400
$125,000
Annual
Costs
$3,000
$1,000
$0
($276,000)
($179,000)
($5,000)
($114,000)
$10,000
($2,000)
Lifecycle
Costs *
$121,000
$40,000
$0
($7,910,000)
($5,170,000)
($150,000)
($3,420,000)
$305,400
$65,000
Lifecycle
Costs **
$79,000
$26,000
$0
($4,077,000)
($2,684,000)
($81,000)
($1,837,000)
$167,000
$93,000
29
-------
Recommendation
Replace damaged or ineffective
equipment
Establish data needs to evaluate
progress and performance
Consider aggressive mass removal
Donate unused equipment to other
EPA sites
Reason
Technical
improvement
Gain site
close out
Gain site
close out
EPA cost
effectiveness
Total
Estimated Change in
Capital
Costs
$60,500
$0
$25,000
$0
$826,900
Annual
Costs
$0
$0
$0
$0
($562,000)
Lifecycle
Costs *
$60,500
$0
$25,000
$0
($16,033,100)
Lifecycle
Costs **
$60,500
$0
$25,000
$0
($8,229,000)
Costs in parentheses imply cost reductions.
* assumes 30 years of operation with a discount rate of 0% (i.e., no discounting)
** assumes 30 years of operation with a discount rate of 5% and no discounting in the first year
30
-------
FIGURES
-------
FIGURE 1-1. GLEN COVE, NASSAU COUNTY, NEW YORK AND THE AREA SURROUNDING THE MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL SUPERFUND SITE
-N-
r;*£W&-^r'- T^« 1 'I ^-iHi'1 jh—i • ' t-J^
!««£S^^^
^•^v--.--w^ &=- I f: -Sf•••«, ^^^^rfW-^H-* *>'
di I ojuM^HTrrr". ;i... r/1 -i-- - P ur
-CM U -v-.-'?'\\ • v. i---'t-.^ ^.. ."/';- *•-.. i,m^'---'^- V ^
riLi^^^^^H" "L •-;^^'"^"i^7!l^"j-a^X=^Ji--
£^t*-'!?^^|^^:^ / i'^i^S^i-C'^
^^d^,^\/^-«p^]
ialTrlSf ^' ^^"^e:"';^:-v
-
Petrochemical
!"^xj.
Mosqmt^' '^\ ^ ,,J|'^^J^^^^Nl^r?^^ jfefiiTfs^^n^
Cov^mf- vO-^'r-.r-.--^% ^••\: .'1. v^MK^^^£^47^^:^;
'""':'^''" v^^^^^^r^^:•!•=?",• fe-^^^-i?!.^^i;s;'~>^H
•/vi. ' .^^tJ.y.^is^EfKS-.'r'^X^.iS.;"^ !-':--i-j=.—i-!r" "' ..-^--aif/X''" ..y' ~^—-~ _. \ftfs:-:j; ': -1
jt%H}j64><.
•,l¥l
1250
SCALE IN FEET
2500
(Figure taken from the 1988 USGS topographical map, Sea Cliff quadrangle.)
-------
FIGURE 1-1. SITE LAYOUT SHOWING SELECT MONITORING POINTS AND THE WELLS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE VAPOR EXTRACTION, GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION, AND WATER REINJECTION SYSTEMS.
WELLS WITH SIGNIFICANT CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS ARE INDICATED
O ^
R-1D
_ OO NVE~Db NVE-9
1
O
O'
FEET
NOTE:
WELLS WITH BOXED LABELS
ARE USED FOR GROUNDWATER
EXTRACTION.
LEGEND
O VABOR EXTRACTION WELL
n REINJECTION WELL
O MONITORING WELL
A PIEZOMETER
• WELLS WHERE JULY-2000 TCE, PCE,
OR TOTAL XYLENE CONCENTRATIONS
EXCEEDED CLEANUP LEVELS BY
A FACTOR OF 1000 OR GREATER.
NOTE THAT ONLY A PORTION OF
SITE-RELATED WELLS WERE SAMPLED
IN JULY-2000.
(Figure compiled from figures of the Mattiace Petrochemical Site Remedial Design, Glen Cove, New York,
prepared by Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation for USEPA, 2000).
-------
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5102G)
542-R-02-008I
October 2002
vwwv.clu-in.org/rse
www.epa.gov/tio
U.S. EPA National Service Center
for Environmental Publications
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419
------- |