+ All documents
Home > Documents > H - Records Collections

H - Records Collections

Date post: 20-Feb-2023
Category:
Upload: khangminh22
View: 0 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
53
^'H i>0 1 ! '- SDMS DocID 456938 EPA Contract No. 68-W9-0036 EPA Work Assignment No. 19-1N51 EPA Project Officer Nancy Barmakian EPA Remedial Project Manager: Bob Cianciarulo VOLUME 3 BENCH-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT GROUNDWATER AND ROCK WASHING NORWOOD PCB SUPERFUND SITE NORWOOD, JMASSACHUSETTS January, 1993 Prepared by: Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Wakefield, MA UelcaH&Eddy C) h
Transcript

^H igt0 1 shy

SDMS DocID 456938 EPA Contract No 68-W9-0036

EPA Work Assignment No 19-1N51

EPA Project Officer Nancy Barmakian EPA Remedial Project Manager Bob Cianciarulo

VOLUME 3

BENCH-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT GROUNDWATER AND ROCK WASHING

NORWOOD PCB SUPERFUND SITE NORWOOD JMASSACHUSETTS

January 1993

Prepared by

Metcalf amp Eddy Inc Wakefield MA

UelcaHampEddy

C) h

z[v(x^(rogt 5

EPA Contract No 68-W9-(X)36 EPA Work Assignment No 19-1N51

EPA Project Officer Nancy Barmakian EPA Remedid Project Manager Bob Cianciamlo

VOLUME 3

BENCH-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT GROUNDWATER AND ROCK WASHING

NORWOOD PCB SUPERFUND SITE NORWOOD IVIASSACHUSETTS

January 1993

Prepared by

Metcalf amp Eddy Inc Wakefield MA

lletcaHampEddy C

c

EPA Contract No 68-W9-0036 EPA Work Assignment No 19-In51

EPA Project Officer Nancy Barmakian EPA Remedial Project Manager Bob Cianciarulo

VOLUME 3

BENCH-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT

GROUNDWATER AND ROCK WASHING

NORWOOD PCB SUPERFUND SITE NORWOOD MASSACHUSETTS

January 1993

Prepared by

MampE Inc Wakefield MA

c

c

TABLE OF CONTENTS

10 GROUNDWATER

11 Interim Study111 Introduction and Objectives112 Description of Work113 Results114 Conclusions

12 Full Scale Study121 Objectives122 Description of Work

1221 Groundwater Sample CoUection1222 Precipitation Testing1223 Filtration Testing1224 Air Stripping Testing1225 Carbon Absorption Testing

123 Results1231 Precipitation Testing1232 Filtration Testing1233 Air Strippmg Testing1234 Carbon Adsorption Testing

124 Conclusions

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

22 Description of Work

23 Resuhs

24 Conclusions

Page

1 1 1 2 6

6 7 7

10 12

14 15

15 19

19 22

24 24

28

37

37

39

41

c

c LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

I-l Treatability Study Sampling and Analysis Schematic 8

1-2 Groundwater and Trench and Cap Rock Sampling Locations 11

1-3 Proposed Groundwater Treatment System Schematic 30

c

c u

r LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1-1 Summary of PCB Results for Phase I Treatability Study Samples 3

1-2 Comparison of Organic Contamination in Groundwater to Effluent Discharge Levels - Temporary Discharge to the Neponset River 4

1-3 Comparison of Metal Contamination in Groundwater to Effluent Discharge Levels - Temporary Discharge to the Neponset River 5

1-4 Treatability Study Sampling and Analysis Summary 9

1-5 Groundwater SampUng Summary 12

1-6 Aeration Test Operations 16 r 1-7 CLP Treatability Study Sampling Summary 17

1-8 Preliminary Polymer Testing Results 20

1-9 FuU-Scale TreatabUity Study Jar Test Results 21

1-10 Metal Hydroxide Sludge Resuhs 23

1-11 FUtration Study Results 24

1-12 FuU-Scale TreatabUity Study Air Stripping Results for WeU MW-IA 25

1-13 FuU-Scale Treatability Study Air Stripping Results for

WeU ME-8 26

1-14 FuU-Scale Treatability Study Carbon Adsorption ResuUs 27

1-15 FuU-Scale Treatability Study Aeration and Carbon Adsorption Results 29 c m

1-16 Comparison of Inorganic FuU-Scale Treatability Study ResuUs to MCLs and Discharge Levels - Discharge to c the Neponset River 31

1-17 Comparison of Inorganic FuU-Scale Treatability Study ResuUs to MCLs and Discharge Levels shyDischarge to Meadow Brook 32

1-18 Comparison of Organic FuU-Scale Treatability Study ResuUs to MCLs and Discharge Levels shyDischarge to the Neponset River 33

1-19 Comparison of Organic FuU-Scale Treatability Study Results to MCLs and Discharge Levels shyDischarge to Meadow Brook 34

2-1 Trench Rock Washing Results 40

2-2 Interim Remedial Cap Rock Analytical Results 42

( w

IV c

Section One

10 GROUNDWATER

11 INTERIM STUDY

111 Introduction and Objectives

Performance of the pumping test phase of the hydrogeologic investigation at the Norwood

PCB site resulted in the accumulation of approximately 25000 gaUons of contaminated

groundwater In order to properly dispose of this contaminated groundwater a Phase I bench

scale treatabUity study was undertaken The objective of the treatabiUty study was to

determine whether two unit operations filtration and carbon adsorption would be effective

in treating the contaminated groundwater so that it could be discharged to the Neponset River

under a temporary permit without any adverse effects to human health or the environment

112 Description of Work

c On August 28 1991 a sample of groundwater was coUected from the Norwood PCB site for

use in the Phase I bench-scale treatability study The sample was coUected from WeU

MW-IA one of the most contaminated weUs at the Norwood PCB site The Phase I

groundwater treatability study was conducted and sample analysis performed during

September 1991 at Hydrosample Laboratory in Northboro Massachusetts

The groundwater sampling and the generation of the treatability samples was conducted in

accordance with the Interim Pre-Design Work Plan No 3 Phase I for the temporary

groundwater treatment plant Three different pore size or particle retention grades of fUter

paper were evaluated for filtration rate and PCB removal The coarse Whatman filter had a

pore size of 10 microns the medium had a pore size of 5 microns and the fine had a pore

size of 1 micron These sizes were chosen because they are the smaUest commerciaUy

avaUable sizes The filtration unit operation was evaluated both as the only treatment

technique and as the initial operation in a filtration carbon adsorption treatment scheme

1 c

c

c

For an evaluation of the carbon adsorption unit operation samples of the three fUtrates were

percolated through a 1 glass column charged with Calgon brand activated carbon Calgons

powdered activated 325 mesh carbon was recommended by Calgon for use in the bench-

scale studies because it decreases the contact time required for adsorption and can be filtered

out of the groundwater with a 045 micron pore size filter Each fUtrate was subjected to the

same carbon treatment The flow rate through the carbon column was adjusted to simulate

the fuU scale onsite carbon adsorption flow rate

113 Results

The results of the Phase I treatability study showed that PCBs the contaminants of greatest

concem were not removed by the filtration unit operation when it was employed as the only

treatment technique This indicates that the PCBs were dissolved or adhered to suspended

material finer than the smaUest commerciaUy avaUable filter pore size and that filtration

alone carmot remove PCBs to the cleanup level Activated carbon is necessary to achieve

PCB cleanup levels

The PCB results from the filtered carbon adsorbed samples indicated that the carbon

removed aU of the PCBs to a concentration of less than 05 xgL The analytical data was

vaUdated using the Data QuaUty Objective (DQO) Level HI criteria outlined in the

Groundwater Bench-Scale Phase I treatability Study QuaUty Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)

All of the analytical data was determined to be vaUd The PCB analytical resuUs are

presented in Table 1-1

One sample of the treated groundwater discharge from the interim treatment operation was

coUected on November 25 1991 The sample was analyzed and found to contain less than

050 jugL PCBs This sample was also analyzed for the twenty three Target Analyte List

(TAL) metals All of the metals concentrations were below the discharge limits calculated

based on AWQC and the flow rate of the discharge and the Neponset River See Tables 1-2

c

c

c

TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF PCB RESULTS FOR PHASE I TREATABILITY SAMPLES

Aroclor 1254 Surrogate Recoveries Concentration xgL TCMX DBC

Initial Sample 48 J 26 93 (Settled Decanted)

Coarse FUtered 63 J 57 102

Coarse FUtered DupUcate 79 140 105

Medium FUtered 59 61 108

Fine FUtered 52 78 97

Coarse FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 75 105

Medium FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 72 92

Fine FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 101

Method Blank 050 UJ 58

Pump Equipment Blank 050 UJ 36 110

TCMX = 2 4 5 6 tetrachlorometaxylene CLP 390 SOW Advisory Recovery Range 60 shy150

DBC = Dibutylchlorendate CLP 288 SOW Advisory Recovery Range 24-154

A non-PCB positive interfering compound coeluted with the DBC surrogate in the method blank therefore the surrogate recovery could not be quantitated

Aroclors 1221 1232 1242 1248 and 1260 were nondetected (050 U) in aU samples

Coarse FUter 10 micron pore size Medium FUter 5 micron pore size Fine FUter 1 micron pore size

c

o C) o TABLE 1-2 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER WITH EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

bull v - o x - - - - - - - - bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - - bull bull bull

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull gt bull bull bull bull gt bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull o gt pMWmmmXiiizz-mm^ 4SoSiSSiyS iSs DAILY - AVQ ^bull sectMMMsectMM mM i^i^^^^

W^MM^0 i ^^ ^ i ^ ^ ) ) ^ ^ ^ ^

liffiSaiArtiMifiig wampsectii^i9MMzWMM^lt

i 0 t M B W ^ SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE

-yio|ijMi i|5|laquoiilifc^ li^Oimim

PHASEn PHASE I PHASE

SURFACE BEDROCK BEDROCK

SjiA3tliilAM|li-^ isiowfciili^rBo^

(van) (uan) (uou

PHASEE

BEDROCK

fuow

iiHiisii BEDROCK

iiiiiiiiiixiii ixc ilfeiiili f-iO(3Msect

Wyt(Bm m^mmM miimmiM camamm WmM-M

|ii|iiiU-S |JipSEsiit||l ^ ^

Mi(iiteiii iciiiiitiii f-Wi^WM

ilii^y^iii illi^i^liliiiSl-liN lGipilaquooiraquoi|i|ii| ^^^ljMm$m-

MAXIMUM

EFFLUENT

DISCHARGE

bull^ bull bull L E V E L bullbullbull

(U6L) (8gt(gt)

MONTHLY

EFFLUENT

DISCHAROE

bull iLEVEL bullbull

(tlOLi (8)(9)

bull||yensi|| W0fW^iz

DISCHAROE

sectBlWW$W ( U a U (8)(9)

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull

iiil iW^

VOLATILE OROANICS

111-TricUoiocthuie 3 3 - - NC NC 170000 NC NC 68850000

M^iM^l ia i t i^^ W MMf ^ ^ i ^ M

Vinyl Chloride

mMWMimMilBMMM iil|||i||i||i|||||

14 14 73

SSi5i5

W S X i i m S M 120 23 6S 110

bull -

bull bull T

no

Wfimmim ISiMBB

NC

llliNGSM iiiipltiiii

NC

bulliiSfi4i|ii-

li PIiAlio|jifshy-3250

mimpmamp wwrnmim-NC

ampampllz-^f^C

Wwyen WM NC

170100

bull bull bull bull shy bull ^ raquo - S 5 lt gt

2126250

12-Dieliloroethene (toUl) 77 300 199 560 44 68 43 no 11600 (13) NC 1400000 (4) 4698000 NC 567000000

|||iiSi^i||laquo|||ii^^^^^^^^

Xylenei (total)

kz^z23i(iwMitiMM^^ W0$0Tisectsectg^^

6 6 shy

|isii7Pois

WlampMlMampW0 - shy shy shy

i-wip

-

z4smmm lmm0(M

NC

sSiiiraquolii(i)l iilltlaquoili

NC

i--iii ii -^lli||Piiiii

NC

ioisiaiiiSipop lsectfiMm

NC

i-Mti969M)

i - zF ^M SC

372ib0

$$laquo43

NC

bullWz-i

SEMIVOLATILES

23S-Trichioioi)beaol 10 10 - - NC NC NC NC NC NC

j|NiiwUfl|ropw^^

13-Dictiloiobeiizeiie

sectMimiMmm^ i|il||||iii|i||i

4 4 shy

i-siJ(t| ii|i WSMWiMMMiWMMM^

-

WMsect M WBWWrshy-

MiMxim- $MM^Mz

NO

m-z^mmi m^msmm NC

IM---iiiMMM WzMW Sk

2600

|Siii laquowq zz^Wlt^^

NC

bullMz-zziMii WzlMM

NC

kiMAz-iMampi WmtW^

1053000

14-Dichlorobenzeiie 14 14 48 67 shy shy shy - NC NC 2600 NC NC 1053000

| i i | l i t j | i i | i | ^

ii|ii|llllilill^ bullimMmMMiiMWMM ghif^m^MmMmiM^

iSmMMyMMsectsectMfziM^ i||||i|i |i|j|||^

bulliMMiiM ^zZ^ZzZZZZ^

^ --zllMMmd |sii|i|ii|

- ISSiiii lls-^iiil

i^iMM^i-iM wiiiW^Sz

iliiO-ii i l- iif-iiiii

WM--z ampiM fampMM

f bull iSilwiobtti

|i|3jl|i|

P C B I

Aioclor-1254 34 180 26 89 64 8 24 27 20 fT) 0014 CT) 00045 810 57 18 AF

secti^^MMMampMM^^ Aroclor-1254 (paper-filtered)

Arociot-124S

BM iM-mi-MmsectMMMiz iiili|iiililiiiliiliiiii

- - l i

liJii -rilSiiiiiil

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii l-l il shy shy -

ilJi|i i-sectsectMBsect i

-

j 0 lt7) iOjCT)

20 (7)

Oi014 (7)

001 (7)

0014 CD

immmmB WMi^MampMi

00IM5

MM--zMshyi bulll l i l i |iloi

^

-bull-iigtM

WsectM0-amp 57

nzzmmm mlBWM

18

V

Aroclof-1248 (ghit-filteRd) 4 4 shy shy shy - 20 (7) 0014 CT) 00045 810 57 18 F

Phaie I RI umpling conducted in May 1988 Phaae II RI lampling conducted in April 1989

NC bull No criteria cxitta for thia compound

(1) Inaufficient Data to Develop Criteria Value preaented ia LOEL shy Loweit Obierved Effect Level

(2) Value preaented for carelnogeiia ia the 10-5 level

(3) Value preaented ia for dichloroethenea

(4) Value preieoted ia for trana 12-dichloroetliene

(5) pH dependent criteria (78 pH uted)

(6) Value preaented ia for chlorinated benzenea

(7) Value presented ia for total PCBa

(8) Effluent DiKhaige Limit based upon an effluent discharge of 5 gpm to the Neponset River during the 7-day low flow lOyr recurrence (2O20gpm)

USGS Pleasant Street Oauging Station on the Neponset River

(9) Dilution factor =[(5gpm+2020gpm)5gpml= 405

(lO)Concentration exceeds effluent discharge limit contaminant must be removed by Groundwater Treatment Plant before discharge to surface water [D=DAILY MAX A=AVG MONTHLY F=FISH]

-

-

-

- - -

-

-

-

-

-

o n o TABLE 1-3 COMPARISON OF METAL CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER WFTH EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull bull bull bull gt gt bull gt bull bull bull bull bull - bull bulliii|vO|| iS iggJMLnei i iaD s-UNFILTEREDgssHis M-B33nsRmmMMM D A I L Y iiiiiiiiiiiiiAVGiiiiii |i mmmmMmmm Xy lira^li P H A S E I WtiiMM liwiAiiiii iiiiimiii iii-pHiwiiliiiii WampMM P H A S E I ilii iiwgiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiili|i| iiii iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii M A X I M U M iiiiipifriiii^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiiifiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

555^gt5^5V555^^^^ i i i ilaquoiij S U R F A C E m m m Wtm^itM B E D R O C K bull bull gt f t bullbullbull B E D R O C K iiiFRiiliiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiijsiiiiiriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii|iiiiiiliiiiiiii E F F L U E N T E F F L U E N T E F F L U E N T iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii wmmm |||ii||li| |i IliAiiiiil WliampiMM liiiiltiilii^isiiii liiiiifctAXliii iiiAiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^i^iibhreiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii liiiiiii iiHiiiiiiiiiiiiii- D I S C H A R O E D I S C H A R O E D I S C H A R O E iiiii imm^mi mmmn WmMm WBrnB

PARAlt4ETER W iMmm iiiiiiiii iiitjiiiii Wi^MMM iiii iiiiiiiiilii iiiaraquoliiii W-imMMi iiiiiiaiiiii mMmmmm iCSiiMAiiiiii O O N S U M P iiiiiiiVEitiiii liiiiisyifeEiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiitiiiiL iiii cii^i iiiiiifl|5iili iiiiiiili (UOW iiiiiiii (oon) iiiiult3piili (UOL) lzMcii0m (UGL) iipiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|^(Siliiiiiiiiii|iiiiii (UOL) (2) (UOL) (6)C7) (IKJL) (6)C7) (UOn) (6) C7) i^iipi

M E T A L S

A h m i n u m 154000 390000 119 352 12500 43900 74 77 NA NA NA NC NC NC

i^poundi1i liiiiiii^iii iiiiiiiPi iii|ilsi iliiiJsiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iii-iili liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii-raquoiiiilti)ij^i JiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiW)i(5i iiiiiiiiiiiiii6Pigtiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiS5iraquoii)i iiiiiitiraquo50 iiiiii3f laquoltraquollishyJ^Sn^iii-illii iiiillifil II |-Iilliiii WlampMi liiliii-ii iiiiiiiifiiiiiili 22a iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii^iiiliiiiiii iiiiiiiiN iiiiiiliiiiiiiii iii-iiiiiiiiiii ifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii fiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiii i iiiiii i j ^ i iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiip iiiiiiiii Bar ium 690 1640 67 2laquo9 53 147 97 19 NC NC NC (5) NC NC NC Beryll ium 18 32 130 (1) 53 (1) 131 52650 2147 531

|^i^ii|litx i s bull liillliSi ZZZZZZZZZ i|||i-^i - iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiii --i|yiiiWi iiiifslt^laquoiiiiiii3jiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiltfcjii i(3yiiiliii iiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiJC iiii-S iifiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMi iiiiiiilii154- bull i i - i i6laquo856i mzMkm iiiiiiiliiii ii|iijji||ii|||i 9lMMi MmiMi zZ^ mm iiiiiiiifi li^iiiiiiiiiraquoliiii 33100 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilMi^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiieiiiii^iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Pi iiiiiiiiiiiiNti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij^i

Chromium 206 526 1 8 18 34 104 16 W 11 (4) 3200 (4) 648b 4455 1296000 -Cobal t 113 295 19 22 36 40 NC NC NC NC NC NC

fMgtimi-^ztm zmisectmi iMiMM wmmi M^iiiiampii iiJiiM 189 iiiiiiiiiisiiiiiilaquo3iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifii iiiiiiiiiiiliiiii^-iiiii isiiiiiiiiiiisiiiii CJiiiiiijiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiStCiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM bullsiiiii iiiiiiili5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiigtireii iiiiiiii-shy bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull iiiiiiliiiiiiWiii bull bull laquo raquo - iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiilifii iiiiiiiiiiii iii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii l i i i i i i i i i i^ i l l l i s i i iiiiii i-iiiiiiiSiiiiiiisiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|fltii- 405000 iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiwii iiiiAiiishymBmmm imampmm WmMM Wimm iiiiillili iiiiiiiiliiiiiii

Lead 43 i t3 21 168 l i 37 30 168 14 (3) 054 p) NC 5670 219 NC

Magnes ium 42400 148000 3950 8990 8630 21100 5040 11200 NC NC NC NC NC NC

iiititlj^iusibiii^j iilllJii^ -M-W^M iiiiiiii^^i^ ii-|7laquo- L5W iiiiiiiiiiiiiilliiifii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiltiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii ii5iiiiiiie iiiiiiiiiiii bullbull bull l t raquo iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNC iiiiiiii isci i i i | | i i i | | i p i i II0M^I iiiiiliiiiiiiiilii WM^MmM ilillilflil i | | | l il |o| | l i i l i P liiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiip8iii bullbull ( U si i l i l i iiiiii- iiii-li|i5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiipiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiii -i- o-iil bull iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiii laquoiii

Nicke l 164 452 64 104 643 (3) 33 (3) 3800 260415 13365 1539000 -Potaaaium 13100 33400 2800 5420 4580 9790 3280 5780 NC NC NC NC NC NC

i|i3laquo|i |s||i ilsectiampim illii|li MmMm iiliil|^i7ii il-lii^|iiraquoiii- (iiltii iliiiiiii^iiiiili^^^ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiii2iwiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiliis lt 6800 ii5iiiiiiiyilaquoJpll i iiiiiiiiiifiiil ^iiilOWi iiiiiii3^lHWraquoi iiiiii--i

|i|||ii Iliii illl|iillSI |illliSl^| illillaquoii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiliiltiii laquo raquo iiiiiiiiiiiii||i||| iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii|i|ltoigttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiliiiiilii iiiiiiiiiiiii bull^bull i l iNc| i-|iiiii -i-iii ii gti5 i iiiiiiiili^^ iiiiiiiiiiii Oiiiiiiii|i bulliiiiiiii Sodium 14100 28900 12500 26raquo00 16320 33200 16300 68000 N c NC NC Nc NC Nc Thal l ium 10 10 58 10 1400 (1) 40 (1) 32 567000 16200 1296

igtPiiiilli MmmmiM liilililil iiliiiiisii iii|ii| bulliiii iiiiiisiiilii iiiiiiiiiiiii|i ii^|i iiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii iiiiiiii ii^iliiiiiiiNiilliiiiiiiji- bulli|iiiiiflaquoSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii|lNe-|i-ii iiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Nc iiiiiii liiNCii iiiiiii iiiiiiiilifiei iiiii iiiiiii iilaquo|||il| mmmmi m m m i M iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisil i iiiisiiiiilllii iiiiliiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiitii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiii iiiiiiliili-|s4ii iiilliiiiiiii ssiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii^^iii-iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii 13365 iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiip^ P b a i e I RI sampling conducted in M a y 1988 Phase II RI samplmg conducted in Apri l 1989

N C = N o cri teria exiata for th is compotmd

N A = N o t Available

(1) Insufficient Data to Develop Cri ter ia Value presented is L O E L - Lowest Observed Effect Level

(2) Value preaented for careinogena ia the 10-S level

(3) Hardness dependent c r i te r ia (25 mgA C A C 0 3 uaed)

(4) Value presented is for Ihe m o r e toxic hexavalent form

(5) Value presented is proposed (more conservat ive)

(6) Effluent Discharge L imi t dilution factor based upon an effluent discbarge of 5 gpm to the Neponse t River during the 7 - d a y low flow lOyr recurrence (2020gpm)

USOS Pleasant Street Oaug ing atation on the Neponset River

(7) Dilut ion factor =[(Sgpm+2020gpm)Sgpm]= 405

(lO)Concentration exceeds effluent discharge limit contaminant must be removed by Groundwate r Treatment Plant before discharge to Ihe Neponset River [ D = D A I L Y M A X A = A V O M O N T H L Y F=FISH]

c and 1-3 for effluent (Uscharge limits for organic and inorganic compounds An acute toxicity

test showed that no toxic effect was observed for the interim treatment discharge

114 Conclusions

Based on the results of the Phase I bench scale treatabUity study the combined unit

operations of fUtration foUowed by carbon adsorption were effective in treating the

contaminated groundwater coUected during the pumping tests for temporary discharge to the

Neponset River A sample of the discharge was coUected during the groundwater treatment

and it was found to contain less than the quantitation limit of 05 xgL of PCB The metals

concentrations were aU determined to be below the discharge criteria A sample was also

coUected and submitted for an acute toxicity determination The resuUs showed that no toxic

effect was observed The bench scale treatability results and the on-line discharge analyses

demonstrate that the filtration and carbon adsorption unit operations were effective temporary

treatment techniques

^ 12 FULL SCALE STUDY

A groundwater treatability study was conducted to evaluate the performance of four different

treatment processes on contaminated groundwater obtained from the Norwood PCB site The

contaminants present in the groundwater were determined during previous studies conducted

in May 1988 and AprU 1989 by EBASCO Chapter 1 of the Final FeasibUity Study

(EBASCO 1989c) contains an overview of the results obtained during these investigations

Based on the resuUs of the May 1988 and AprU 1989 field investigations EPA concluded

that the overburden and bedrock aquifers beneath the site were contaminated with

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and volatUe and semivolatile organic compounds (VOCs

and SVOCs) It was determined that surficial and subsurface soUs dredge pUes of sediments

taken from Meadow Brook sediments in Meadow Brook and sediments in the drainage

system of the buUding operated by Grant Gear were the sources of the contamination In

r

c September 1989 EPA released the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Norwood PCB site In

the ROD EPA directed that groundwater be treated with a system including activated carbon

air stripping with vapor controls and precipitationfiltration iEPA also directed that

treatability studies or pUot studies be conducted to aid in the overaU design of the system

In accordance with the ROD a bench scale treatabUity study was conducted at the ENSECO

Laboratory Facility in Cambridge Massachusetts by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel between

January 14 and February 16 1992 This report presents a description of the work

completed resuUs and conclusions of the study

121 Objectives

The fuU-scale groundwater treatability study was conducted to determine if treatment

consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping and carbon adsorption would effectively

remove the contamination present in the groundwater at the Norwood PCB site to appUcable

standards Information on the percent reduction of organic and inorganic compounds in the

groundwater volume type of residual and byproducts produced by each component were

also investigated A schematic detailing the treatability study and the sampling and analysis

conducted is presented in Figure 1-1

122 Description of Work

The treatability study was performed in accordance with Pre-Design Work Plan 3 and the

QuaUty Assurance Project Plan for the Phase n Bench-Scale TreatabiUty Study (Work

Plan 3)

Groundwater samples were coUected from the Norwood PCB site for use in this

investigation Interim sampling was performed on effluent streams generated from each

bench-scale process for analysis according to Table 1-4 Influent and final effluent samples

generated during the groundwater treatabiUty were coUected and analyzed through the CLP

^

o JAR TESTING SAMPLE ID

o

POLYMER TESTING

RAW GROUNDWATER

VOL 1 SVOL I p PCB f ^ ^ METALS

mdash SST

T

T

T

SS - Choose Polymer T ar)d Dose Estimate pH pf i After Coagu lant

Jar Test 1 PH10 bull

Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

Ume wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

Jar Test 2 pH9

Jar Test 3 pH8

bull

Lime w C oag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

JT1 -1 shy

j r i -2 shy

JT1 -3 shy

JTI-4

j r 2 - 1

JT2-2 shy

JT2-3

j r2-4 bull

JT3-1 shy

JT3-2shy

JT3-3 bull

JT3-4 shy

HLTRATION TESTING

RIter Paper 1 - SS T Time mdash |

RIter Paper 2 - SS T Time-

Rlter Paper 3 - SS T Time -

CtHXise Filter Paper or Particle Retention Size

Sample Well Using Bailer

VOL SVOL PCB CLPMETALS (PPF-1)

Precipitate and Filter Using Optimized Polymer pH Coagulant and Filter

lt

AIR STRIPPING

AJrWater Ratio 1

AirWater Ratio 2

AirWater Ratio3 ~

VOLmdash1

-VOL

-VOLmdash

SAMPLE ID CARBON ADSORPTION (All by CLP)

Carbon mdashVOL SVOL Metals AC-1

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-2

Dose 3 mdash ^ deg shy reg ^ deg ^^reg ^ ^

Carbon

Dose1

Carbon Dose 2

Cartwn

Dose 4

Cartxjn Dose 1

Carbon Dose2~

Carbon Dose 3

Carbon Dose4~

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-4

-VOL C-1

-VOL SVOL Metals C-2

-VOL PCB C-3

bull VOL SVOL Chronic Toxicity C-4

Jar Test 4 pH 10 Dup

bull

- Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

Jr4-1

JT4-2

JT4-3

Carbon Doses

Cartxgtn Dose 6

-VOL SVOL PCB

mdash VOL Metals

C-5

C-6

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals JT4-4

VOL = Volatile Organics SVOL = Semi Volatile Organics

Carbon Dose 7

mdashVOL SVOL C-7

SS = Suspended Solids

NaOH-MNAL JT5-1 T = Turbidity

Jar Test 5 pHIO

NaOH - wPolymer - MN AL

NaOH wPoly wCoag RItered - MN AL

JT5-2

JT5-3

NaOH wPdy wCoag Aerated andRItered - MN AL

JT5-4

^ NaOH wPdy wCoag PermanganateRItered - MN M

JT5-5

J O Special FIGURE 1-1 TREATABILITY STUDY

Optimize pH Decide Ume or NaOH

SAMPUNG AND ANALYSIS SCHEMATIC

Compare Polymer vs Coagulant

(J DF222658HW

c

c

TABLE 1-4 TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Number Bench Scale Process

Groundwater Treatability Study

Initial Groundwater

Preliminary Polymer Testing

Precipitation Supemant

FUtration Effluent

Metals Sludge Precipitated and FUtered Effluent with Groundwater CoUected with BaUer

Air Stripping Effluent

Air Stripped Carbon Adsorption Effluent

Non Air Stripped Carbon Effluent

Sludge Sample

Rock Washing Study

Initial Rocks Initial Gravel from roof Stone from Cap Washed Rocks Washed Stones

Samples

1

1 1

16 16 16

3 3

1 2 2 2

3

4 4 2 2

7 4 2 2 1 1

3 5 6 3 1

Analysis

VolatUes SemivolatUes PCB Metals Suspended SoUds pH Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity Metals VolatUe Organics

Suspended SoUds TuAidity

PCB VolatUe Organics PCB SemivolatUe Organics

VolatUe Organics

SemivolatUe Organics VolatUe Organics Metals PCB

VolatUe Organics SemivolatUe Organics Metals PCB Chronic Toxicity PCBs Metals

PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB

Laboratory

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

c

c

c

system for volatUes semivolatUes PCBs and metals AU interim samples were analyzed at

ENSECO in Cambridge Massachusetts AU data was vaUdated by MampE according to the

QAPP

1221 Groundwater Sample CoUection Groundwater for this study was coUected from

weUs MW-IA and ME-8 as shown on Figure 1-2 iMW-lA was chosen as a sampling

location because it was determined to be one of the most contaminated weUs on-site based

on previous investigations During the course of the treatabiUty study a decision was made

to obtain samples from ME-8 because results of the most recent sampling effort conducted by

ICF indicated that groundwater from this weU contained approximately 200 xgL vinyl

chloride whereas groundwater from MW-IA no longer contained any quantifiable amount

Removal of vinyl chloride by aeration needed to be demonstrated during this investigation

because vinyl chloride is not effectively removed by carbon adsorption

Groundwater samples were obtained on four separate occasions during the study as shown in

Table 1-5 On each occasion the groundwater was coUected in accordance with the Field

Sampling Plan Three weU volumes of water were purged from the weU using a centrifiigal

pump before any samples were coUected The pH temperature and conductivity of the

purge water was measured after each weU volume untU the measured values differed by less

than 10 for three consecutive samples to ensure the sample drawn was representative of the

water in the aquifer Samples for the metals precipitation and filtration study were coUected

using a centrifugal pump Samples for the air stripping and carbon adsorption study were

coUected with a teflon baUer to minimize aeration and possible loss of volatUes during

sample coUection

The samples were coUected in one gallon amber glass bottles and stored at 4degC Each

sample bottle wasfiUed to exclude a headspace in the bottle

e 10

200 200

SCALE IN FEET

D CAP ROCK SAMPLE LOCATION

bull WELLS

nOURE 1-2 GROUNDWATER AND TRENCH AND CAP

ROCK SAMPLING LOCATIONS

11

E T C A L F a EDDY

c TABLE 1-5 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING SUMMARY

Mode of Date WeU Amount Sampled pH Temp degC Conductivity SampUng

11392 MW-IA 10 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm pump

12792 MW-IA 16 gaUons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20392 MW-IA 16 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20592 ME-8 2 gallons 64 8deg 230 umhocm baUer

1222 Precipitation Testing

General Chemical precipitation for the removal of metals was evaluated at three pH values

and three polymer dosages to determine the effectiveness of the treatment A preliminary

evaluation of different coagulants and polymers was conducted at three pH values by

r Metcalf amp Eddy personnel and a leading polymer vendor to determine which chemicals could

potentiaUy be used to precipitate groundwater Based on the results from the preliminary

evaluation jar tests were conducted by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel to aid in the determination

of the chemical dosages required to optimize the effectiveness of precipitation

Polymer and Coagulent Testing Polymer testing was performed by Metcalf amp Eddy and a

leading polymer vendor at the ENSECO laboratory faciUty in Cambridge Massachusetts

The effectiveness of anionic cationic and nonioiuc polymer was evaluated at three pH

values The best polymer was determined to be Drewfloc 2270 a low charge anionic high

molecular weight polymer This polymer was used in jar tests 1 through 5 The best

coagulent was determined to be Charge Pack 12 (CP-12) a higher charge cationic low

molecular weight coagulent The CP-12 coagulent was used in jar tests 1 through 5

described under jar testing

12 c

InitiaUy the effects of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was investigated Tests c were conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 with sodium hydroxide which had the best

settling characteristics based on visual observation and turbidity measurement Each polymer

was then tested at pH = 100 to evaluate Us effectiveness under optimum pH conditions

A formula of polymer and coagulant addition was developed based on visual observations

suspended soUds and turbidity analyses performed on each sample generated during the

investigation The anionic polymer effectively flocculated the existing smaU suspended

particles and the addkion of cationic coagulant removed iron and color when the pH was

raised to 100

Jar Testing Five jar tests were performed using the polymer and coagulants determined to

be effective during preliminary testing Jar tests 1 and 4 were conducted as dupUcates at

ph 10 Jar test 2 was conducted at pH 9 jar test 3 was conducted at pH 8 and jar test 5 was

conducted at pH 10 On each occasion prior to beginning the jar test the raw groundwater

was brought tol5deg-17degCina warm water bath The temperature was held constant to c eliminate the effects of temperature on reaction rates and solubUity

The foUowing is a description of activities conducted during the jar tests fti through 4 See

Figure 1-1 for details Four samples were evaluated during each jar test For each jar test

four 15 Uter beakers were fiUed with 1 Uter of raw groundwater The beakers were placed

on the stirrer platform and the paddles were lowered into the sample The jar stirrer was

operated at 80 revolutions per minute (rpm) The pH was then adjusted to the desired value

(pH = 10 9 8 10 for Tests 1 2 3 4) with a lime slurry in two samples and with a

sodium hydroxide solution (25) in the remaining two samples Lime was added to

investigate its effects on the precipitate and to evaluate its effectiveness in pH adjustment

The cationic coagulant was then added to each sample untU the concentration in solution was

30 mgL The solution was stirred at 80 rpm for 2 minutes to ensure complete mixing The

polymer was then added to one sample pH adjusted with sodium hydroxide and one sample

pH adjusted with lime Mixing continued for two minutes Next the solution was stirred

13 c

slowly orflocculated for five minutes at 20 rpm FinaUy the solutions were aUowed to

c settle for 10 minutes Visual observations were recorded and samples were submitted for

suspended soUds turbidity and metals analyses

Jar test 5 was performed to assess the removal of manganese and aluminum by preaeration

and permanganate additions (see Figure 1-1) Because no significant benefit was observed in

the previous tests when lime was used instead of sodium hydroxide sodium hydroxide was

used to adjust the pH in aU four samples to a pH of 100 in jar test 5 Only sodium

hydroxide was added to the groundwater in the first jar to determine the removal of

manganese and aluminum attributable to the formation of an insoluble salt at high pH

Sodium hydroxide and polymer were added to the second jar to evaluate the effectiveness of

the polymer Sodium hydroxide polymer and coagulant were added to sample 4 The

supemate from sample 4 was then fUtered This was performed to determine if the required

removal efficiencies could be achieved by chemical precipitation and filtration

Permanganate was added to sample 3 in addition to sodium hydroxide coagulant and

polymer to determine if the manganese and aluminum present could be chemicaUy oxidized c to a less soluble state which would enhance the efficiency of fUtration The supemate was

then siphoned off using clean tygon tubing and a syringe into the sample containers

Samples were submitted for metals suspended soUds and turbidity as illustrated on

Figure 1-1

1223 Filtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was perfonned to determine the

optimum pore size of filter media that could effectively remove the suspended soUds in the

precipitated groundwater The determination of the removal efficiency for each filter was

based on the concentration of suspended soUds and turbidity of the filtered water The time

required to filter the groundwater was also evaluated

Prior to filtration the metals in the groundwater were precipitated and coagulent and polymer

were added using the optimum conditions developed during the precipitation study The

optimum conditions consisted of pH adjustment to 10 with sodium hydroxide addition of

14 c

coagulent CP-12 to a concentration of one percent and addition of Drewfloc 2270 polymer to

c a concentration of 10 mgl Three grades (10 xm 5 xm and 1 xm pore sizes) of filter

paper were used with a Buchner ftmnel to filter aUquots of the precipitated groundwater

Samples of the filtered water were submitted to ENSECO for suspended soUds and turbidity

analysis

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge was coUected during the treatability study The

sludge sample was submitted to the CLP system for PCB and metals analysis so that a

characterization of the sludge could be made and disposal options could be evaluated

1224 Air Stripping Testing Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at three

different air to water ratios to determine the most effective stripping ratio To ensure that

worst case volatUe organic compound concentrations were present in the samples for this

study some modifications were made in how the sample was coUected and treated First

the groundwater was coUected with a baUer to prevent the loss of volatUes AdditionaUy the

water was fUtered under positive pressure foUowing the precipitation step to minimize the c loss of volatUes that would result if the water was filtered using a vacuum pump

An aquarium pump tygon tubing and aeration stone with a glass-fiber fUter cartridge was

used to aerate 1-Uter aUquots of precipitated and filtered groundwater The aeration flow

rate was caUbrated by filling a graduated cylinder with air that had been filled with tap water

and inverted in a water bath The air was diffused at 375 missec into 1-Uter aUquots of

groundwater and the time measured as iUustrated in Table 1-6 The aerated groundwater was

submitted to ENSECO for volatUe organics analysis

1225 Carbon Adsorption Testing The effectiveness of activated carbon for the removal

of organic compounds in the groundwater at the site was evaluated The carbon used was

the powdered activated 325 mesh carbon suppUed by Calgon Corporation The groundwater

samples used for this investigation were obtained and filtered as described in the air stripping

15 c

c

c

TABLE 1-6 AERATION TEST OPERATIONS

Air to Water Ratio Volume Volume of by Volume of Water Air Reqd Min of Aeration

251 1000 ml 25000 ml 111 501 1000 ml 50000 ml 222 751 1000 ml 75000 ml 333

section of this report to minimize the loss of volatUes A total of twelve samples were mn

during this investigation The necessity of air stripping was investigated by comparing the

resuUs from four samples that were air stripped to seven samples that were treated identicaUy

with the exception of air stripping AU samples for the air stripping comparison went

through the precipitation filtration and carbon adsorption processes AdditionaUy one

sample was prepared with no carbon added to serve as an untreated sample The samples are

summarized in Table 1-7 Each groundwater sample was prepared and mixed with a

predetermined dose of Calgon powdered 325 mesh activated carbon and placed m an open

Erlenmyer flask on a shaker table for a two-hour time period at 180 rpm A rotary shaker

table capable of accommodating twelve (12)-1000 ml Erlenmyer flasks was used Effluent

was fUtered with a barrel filter using a glass-fiber pre-fUter and a Whatman 45 micron

membrane The effluent clear and odorless in aU cases was added to sample containers

preserved and packed for shipment to CLP laboratories Since the shaker table could

accommodate 12 flasks a total of approximately 4 gaUons of effluent was generated during

each mn Several mns were performed to generate adequate quantities of sample for

analysis accordmg to Table 1-7 Groundwater was simUarly prepared for submittal to

Aquatec Lab in Burlington Vermont for chronic toxicity testing Three (3) shipments of

approximately 2 gaUons each were made

r 16

C) o o TABLE 1-7 CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation Filtration Aeration amp Carbon

AC-1 05 V SV MET 3400 3 1067 054 AC-2 20 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 22 AC-3 50 V SV MET 3400 3 1133 57 AC-4 100 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 110 AC-5 Trip Blank 0 V

Precipitation Filtration amp Carbon

C-0 0 V 500 1 500 0

C-1 05 V SV MET 3200 3 1067 053

c-2 10 V PCB 2200 2 1100 11

C-3 20 V SV CT 29000 24 1250 25

C-4 50 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 55

C-17 70 V MET 1200 1 1200 70

C-18 100 V SV 2200 2 1100 110

C-13 Treatability Blank 0 V PCB 2200 0 0 0

C-20 Trip Blank 0 V 0

C-10 Duplicate of C-1 05 SV 2000 2 1000 05

C-1 05 (MSMSD) 500 1 500 025

C-11 Duplicate of C-1 05 MET 1000 1 1000 05

C-20 Duplicate of C-2 10 V PCB (MSMSD)

4400 4 1100 11

C-16 Duplicate of C-4 50 PCB 2000 2 1000 50

C-6 0 PCB 2000 2 1000 0

17

o o n TABLE 1-7 (Continued) CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation amp Filtration

PPF-1 V SV MET PCB 2000 2 1000 0

Sludge

Sludge-1 0 MET PCB 0

V = VolatUe organics SV = Semivolatile organics MET = Metals PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls CT = Chronic toxicity MSMSD = Matrix spikematrix spike dup D = DupUcate TB = Trip blank PPF = Precipitated and pressure filtered

(to minimize volatUes loss as opposed to vacuum filtration)

18

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

z[v(x^(rogt 5

EPA Contract No 68-W9-(X)36 EPA Work Assignment No 19-1N51

EPA Project Officer Nancy Barmakian EPA Remedid Project Manager Bob Cianciamlo

VOLUME 3

BENCH-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT GROUNDWATER AND ROCK WASHING

NORWOOD PCB SUPERFUND SITE NORWOOD IVIASSACHUSETTS

January 1993

Prepared by

Metcalf amp Eddy Inc Wakefield MA

lletcaHampEddy C

c

EPA Contract No 68-W9-0036 EPA Work Assignment No 19-In51

EPA Project Officer Nancy Barmakian EPA Remedial Project Manager Bob Cianciarulo

VOLUME 3

BENCH-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT

GROUNDWATER AND ROCK WASHING

NORWOOD PCB SUPERFUND SITE NORWOOD MASSACHUSETTS

January 1993

Prepared by

MampE Inc Wakefield MA

c

c

TABLE OF CONTENTS

10 GROUNDWATER

11 Interim Study111 Introduction and Objectives112 Description of Work113 Results114 Conclusions

12 Full Scale Study121 Objectives122 Description of Work

1221 Groundwater Sample CoUection1222 Precipitation Testing1223 Filtration Testing1224 Air Stripping Testing1225 Carbon Absorption Testing

123 Results1231 Precipitation Testing1232 Filtration Testing1233 Air Strippmg Testing1234 Carbon Adsorption Testing

124 Conclusions

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

22 Description of Work

23 Resuhs

24 Conclusions

Page

1 1 1 2 6

6 7 7

10 12

14 15

15 19

19 22

24 24

28

37

37

39

41

c

c LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

I-l Treatability Study Sampling and Analysis Schematic 8

1-2 Groundwater and Trench and Cap Rock Sampling Locations 11

1-3 Proposed Groundwater Treatment System Schematic 30

c

c u

r LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1-1 Summary of PCB Results for Phase I Treatability Study Samples 3

1-2 Comparison of Organic Contamination in Groundwater to Effluent Discharge Levels - Temporary Discharge to the Neponset River 4

1-3 Comparison of Metal Contamination in Groundwater to Effluent Discharge Levels - Temporary Discharge to the Neponset River 5

1-4 Treatability Study Sampling and Analysis Summary 9

1-5 Groundwater SampUng Summary 12

1-6 Aeration Test Operations 16 r 1-7 CLP Treatability Study Sampling Summary 17

1-8 Preliminary Polymer Testing Results 20

1-9 FuU-Scale TreatabUity Study Jar Test Results 21

1-10 Metal Hydroxide Sludge Resuhs 23

1-11 FUtration Study Results 24

1-12 FuU-Scale TreatabUity Study Air Stripping Results for WeU MW-IA 25

1-13 FuU-Scale Treatability Study Air Stripping Results for

WeU ME-8 26

1-14 FuU-Scale Treatability Study Carbon Adsorption ResuUs 27

1-15 FuU-Scale Treatability Study Aeration and Carbon Adsorption Results 29 c m

1-16 Comparison of Inorganic FuU-Scale Treatability Study ResuUs to MCLs and Discharge Levels - Discharge to c the Neponset River 31

1-17 Comparison of Inorganic FuU-Scale Treatability Study ResuUs to MCLs and Discharge Levels shyDischarge to Meadow Brook 32

1-18 Comparison of Organic FuU-Scale Treatability Study ResuUs to MCLs and Discharge Levels shyDischarge to the Neponset River 33

1-19 Comparison of Organic FuU-Scale Treatability Study Results to MCLs and Discharge Levels shyDischarge to Meadow Brook 34

2-1 Trench Rock Washing Results 40

2-2 Interim Remedial Cap Rock Analytical Results 42

( w

IV c

Section One

10 GROUNDWATER

11 INTERIM STUDY

111 Introduction and Objectives

Performance of the pumping test phase of the hydrogeologic investigation at the Norwood

PCB site resulted in the accumulation of approximately 25000 gaUons of contaminated

groundwater In order to properly dispose of this contaminated groundwater a Phase I bench

scale treatabUity study was undertaken The objective of the treatabiUty study was to

determine whether two unit operations filtration and carbon adsorption would be effective

in treating the contaminated groundwater so that it could be discharged to the Neponset River

under a temporary permit without any adverse effects to human health or the environment

112 Description of Work

c On August 28 1991 a sample of groundwater was coUected from the Norwood PCB site for

use in the Phase I bench-scale treatability study The sample was coUected from WeU

MW-IA one of the most contaminated weUs at the Norwood PCB site The Phase I

groundwater treatability study was conducted and sample analysis performed during

September 1991 at Hydrosample Laboratory in Northboro Massachusetts

The groundwater sampling and the generation of the treatability samples was conducted in

accordance with the Interim Pre-Design Work Plan No 3 Phase I for the temporary

groundwater treatment plant Three different pore size or particle retention grades of fUter

paper were evaluated for filtration rate and PCB removal The coarse Whatman filter had a

pore size of 10 microns the medium had a pore size of 5 microns and the fine had a pore

size of 1 micron These sizes were chosen because they are the smaUest commerciaUy

avaUable sizes The filtration unit operation was evaluated both as the only treatment

technique and as the initial operation in a filtration carbon adsorption treatment scheme

1 c

c

c

For an evaluation of the carbon adsorption unit operation samples of the three fUtrates were

percolated through a 1 glass column charged with Calgon brand activated carbon Calgons

powdered activated 325 mesh carbon was recommended by Calgon for use in the bench-

scale studies because it decreases the contact time required for adsorption and can be filtered

out of the groundwater with a 045 micron pore size filter Each fUtrate was subjected to the

same carbon treatment The flow rate through the carbon column was adjusted to simulate

the fuU scale onsite carbon adsorption flow rate

113 Results

The results of the Phase I treatability study showed that PCBs the contaminants of greatest

concem were not removed by the filtration unit operation when it was employed as the only

treatment technique This indicates that the PCBs were dissolved or adhered to suspended

material finer than the smaUest commerciaUy avaUable filter pore size and that filtration

alone carmot remove PCBs to the cleanup level Activated carbon is necessary to achieve

PCB cleanup levels

The PCB results from the filtered carbon adsorbed samples indicated that the carbon

removed aU of the PCBs to a concentration of less than 05 xgL The analytical data was

vaUdated using the Data QuaUty Objective (DQO) Level HI criteria outlined in the

Groundwater Bench-Scale Phase I treatability Study QuaUty Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)

All of the analytical data was determined to be vaUd The PCB analytical resuUs are

presented in Table 1-1

One sample of the treated groundwater discharge from the interim treatment operation was

coUected on November 25 1991 The sample was analyzed and found to contain less than

050 jugL PCBs This sample was also analyzed for the twenty three Target Analyte List

(TAL) metals All of the metals concentrations were below the discharge limits calculated

based on AWQC and the flow rate of the discharge and the Neponset River See Tables 1-2

c

c

c

TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF PCB RESULTS FOR PHASE I TREATABILITY SAMPLES

Aroclor 1254 Surrogate Recoveries Concentration xgL TCMX DBC

Initial Sample 48 J 26 93 (Settled Decanted)

Coarse FUtered 63 J 57 102

Coarse FUtered DupUcate 79 140 105

Medium FUtered 59 61 108

Fine FUtered 52 78 97

Coarse FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 75 105

Medium FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 72 92

Fine FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 101

Method Blank 050 UJ 58

Pump Equipment Blank 050 UJ 36 110

TCMX = 2 4 5 6 tetrachlorometaxylene CLP 390 SOW Advisory Recovery Range 60 shy150

DBC = Dibutylchlorendate CLP 288 SOW Advisory Recovery Range 24-154

A non-PCB positive interfering compound coeluted with the DBC surrogate in the method blank therefore the surrogate recovery could not be quantitated

Aroclors 1221 1232 1242 1248 and 1260 were nondetected (050 U) in aU samples

Coarse FUter 10 micron pore size Medium FUter 5 micron pore size Fine FUter 1 micron pore size

c

o C) o TABLE 1-2 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER WITH EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

bull v - o x - - - - - - - - bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - - bull bull bull

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull gt bull bull bull bull gt bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull o gt pMWmmmXiiizz-mm^ 4SoSiSSiyS iSs DAILY - AVQ ^bull sectMMMsectMM mM i^i^^^^

W^MM^0 i ^^ ^ i ^ ^ ) ) ^ ^ ^ ^

liffiSaiArtiMifiig wampsectii^i9MMzWMM^lt

i 0 t M B W ^ SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE

-yio|ijMi i|5|laquoiilifc^ li^Oimim

PHASEn PHASE I PHASE

SURFACE BEDROCK BEDROCK

SjiA3tliilAM|li-^ isiowfciili^rBo^

(van) (uan) (uou

PHASEE

BEDROCK

fuow

iiHiisii BEDROCK

iiiiiiiiiixiii ixc ilfeiiili f-iO(3Msect

Wyt(Bm m^mmM miimmiM camamm WmM-M

|ii|iiiU-S |JipSEsiit||l ^ ^

Mi(iiteiii iciiiiitiii f-Wi^WM

ilii^y^iii illi^i^liliiiSl-liN lGipilaquooiraquoi|i|ii| ^^^ljMm$m-

MAXIMUM

EFFLUENT

DISCHARGE

bull^ bull bull L E V E L bullbullbull

(U6L) (8gt(gt)

MONTHLY

EFFLUENT

DISCHAROE

bull iLEVEL bullbull

(tlOLi (8)(9)

bull||yensi|| W0fW^iz

DISCHAROE

sectBlWW$W ( U a U (8)(9)

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull

iiil iW^

VOLATILE OROANICS

111-TricUoiocthuie 3 3 - - NC NC 170000 NC NC 68850000

M^iM^l ia i t i^^ W MMf ^ ^ i ^ M

Vinyl Chloride

mMWMimMilBMMM iil|||i||i||i|||||

14 14 73

SSi5i5

W S X i i m S M 120 23 6S 110

bull -

bull bull T

no

Wfimmim ISiMBB

NC

llliNGSM iiiipltiiii

NC

bulliiSfi4i|ii-

li PIiAlio|jifshy-3250

mimpmamp wwrnmim-NC

ampampllz-^f^C

Wwyen WM NC

170100

bull bull bull bull shy bull ^ raquo - S 5 lt gt

2126250

12-Dieliloroethene (toUl) 77 300 199 560 44 68 43 no 11600 (13) NC 1400000 (4) 4698000 NC 567000000

|||iiSi^i||laquo|||ii^^^^^^^^

Xylenei (total)

kz^z23i(iwMitiMM^^ W0$0Tisectsectg^^

6 6 shy

|isii7Pois

WlampMlMampW0 - shy shy shy

i-wip

-

z4smmm lmm0(M

NC

sSiiiraquolii(i)l iilltlaquoili

NC

i--iii ii -^lli||Piiiii

NC

ioisiaiiiSipop lsectfiMm

NC

i-Mti969M)

i - zF ^M SC

372ib0

$$laquo43

NC

bullWz-i

SEMIVOLATILES

23S-Trichioioi)beaol 10 10 - - NC NC NC NC NC NC

j|NiiwUfl|ropw^^

13-Dictiloiobeiizeiie

sectMimiMmm^ i|il||||iii|i||i

4 4 shy

i-siJ(t| ii|i WSMWiMMMiWMMM^

-

WMsect M WBWWrshy-

MiMxim- $MM^Mz

NO

m-z^mmi m^msmm NC

IM---iiiMMM WzMW Sk

2600

|Siii laquowq zz^Wlt^^

NC

bullMz-zziMii WzlMM

NC

kiMAz-iMampi WmtW^

1053000

14-Dichlorobenzeiie 14 14 48 67 shy shy shy - NC NC 2600 NC NC 1053000

| i i | l i t j | i i | i | ^

ii|ii|llllilill^ bullimMmMMiiMWMM ghif^m^MmMmiM^

iSmMMyMMsectsectMfziM^ i||||i|i |i|j|||^

bulliMMiiM ^zZ^ZzZZZZ^

^ --zllMMmd |sii|i|ii|

- ISSiiii lls-^iiil

i^iMM^i-iM wiiiW^Sz

iliiO-ii i l- iif-iiiii

WM--z ampiM fampMM

f bull iSilwiobtti

|i|3jl|i|

P C B I

Aioclor-1254 34 180 26 89 64 8 24 27 20 fT) 0014 CT) 00045 810 57 18 AF

secti^^MMMampMM^^ Aroclor-1254 (paper-filtered)

Arociot-124S

BM iM-mi-MmsectMMMiz iiili|iiililiiiliiliiiii

- - l i

liJii -rilSiiiiiil

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii l-l il shy shy -

ilJi|i i-sectsectMBsect i

-

j 0 lt7) iOjCT)

20 (7)

Oi014 (7)

001 (7)

0014 CD

immmmB WMi^MampMi

00IM5

MM--zMshyi bulll l i l i |iloi

^

-bull-iigtM

WsectM0-amp 57

nzzmmm mlBWM

18

V

Aroclof-1248 (ghit-filteRd) 4 4 shy shy shy - 20 (7) 0014 CT) 00045 810 57 18 F

Phaie I RI umpling conducted in May 1988 Phaae II RI lampling conducted in April 1989

NC bull No criteria cxitta for thia compound

(1) Inaufficient Data to Develop Criteria Value preaented ia LOEL shy Loweit Obierved Effect Level

(2) Value preaented for carelnogeiia ia the 10-5 level

(3) Value preaented ia for dichloroethenea

(4) Value preieoted ia for trana 12-dichloroetliene

(5) pH dependent criteria (78 pH uted)

(6) Value preaented ia for chlorinated benzenea

(7) Value presented ia for total PCBa

(8) Effluent DiKhaige Limit based upon an effluent discharge of 5 gpm to the Neponset River during the 7-day low flow lOyr recurrence (2O20gpm)

USGS Pleasant Street Oauging Station on the Neponset River

(9) Dilution factor =[(5gpm+2020gpm)5gpml= 405

(lO)Concentration exceeds effluent discharge limit contaminant must be removed by Groundwater Treatment Plant before discharge to surface water [D=DAILY MAX A=AVG MONTHLY F=FISH]

-

-

-

- - -

-

-

-

-

-

o n o TABLE 1-3 COMPARISON OF METAL CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER WFTH EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull bull bull bull gt gt bull gt bull bull bull bull bull - bull bulliii|vO|| iS iggJMLnei i iaD s-UNFILTEREDgssHis M-B33nsRmmMMM D A I L Y iiiiiiiiiiiiiAVGiiiiii |i mmmmMmmm Xy lira^li P H A S E I WtiiMM liwiAiiiii iiiiimiii iii-pHiwiiliiiii WampMM P H A S E I ilii iiwgiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiili|i| iiii iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii M A X I M U M iiiiipifriiii^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiiifiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

555^gt5^5V555^^^^ i i i ilaquoiij S U R F A C E m m m Wtm^itM B E D R O C K bull bull gt f t bullbullbull B E D R O C K iiiFRiiliiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiijsiiiiiriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii|iiiiiiliiiiiiii E F F L U E N T E F F L U E N T E F F L U E N T iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii wmmm |||ii||li| |i IliAiiiiil WliampiMM liiiiltiilii^isiiii liiiiifctAXliii iiiAiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^i^iibhreiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii liiiiiii iiHiiiiiiiiiiiiii- D I S C H A R O E D I S C H A R O E D I S C H A R O E iiiii imm^mi mmmn WmMm WBrnB

PARAlt4ETER W iMmm iiiiiiiii iiitjiiiii Wi^MMM iiii iiiiiiiiilii iiiaraquoliiii W-imMMi iiiiiiaiiiii mMmmmm iCSiiMAiiiiii O O N S U M P iiiiiiiVEitiiii liiiiisyifeEiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiitiiiiL iiii cii^i iiiiiifl|5iili iiiiiiili (UOW iiiiiiii (oon) iiiiult3piili (UOL) lzMcii0m (UGL) iipiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|^(Siliiiiiiiiii|iiiiii (UOL) (2) (UOL) (6)C7) (IKJL) (6)C7) (UOn) (6) C7) i^iipi

M E T A L S

A h m i n u m 154000 390000 119 352 12500 43900 74 77 NA NA NA NC NC NC

i^poundi1i liiiiiii^iii iiiiiiiPi iii|ilsi iliiiJsiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iii-iili liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii-raquoiiiilti)ij^i JiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiW)i(5i iiiiiiiiiiiiii6Pigtiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiS5iraquoii)i iiiiiitiraquo50 iiiiii3f laquoltraquollishyJ^Sn^iii-illii iiiillifil II |-Iilliiii WlampMi liiliii-ii iiiiiiiifiiiiiili 22a iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii^iiiliiiiiii iiiiiiiiN iiiiiiliiiiiiiii iii-iiiiiiiiiii ifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii fiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiii i iiiiii i j ^ i iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiip iiiiiiiii Bar ium 690 1640 67 2laquo9 53 147 97 19 NC NC NC (5) NC NC NC Beryll ium 18 32 130 (1) 53 (1) 131 52650 2147 531

|^i^ii|litx i s bull liillliSi ZZZZZZZZZ i|||i-^i - iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiii --i|yiiiWi iiiifslt^laquoiiiiiii3jiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiltfcjii i(3yiiiliii iiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiJC iiii-S iifiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMi iiiiiiilii154- bull i i - i i6laquo856i mzMkm iiiiiiiliiii ii|iijji||ii|||i 9lMMi MmiMi zZ^ mm iiiiiiiifi li^iiiiiiiiiraquoliiii 33100 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilMi^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiieiiiii^iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Pi iiiiiiiiiiiiNti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij^i

Chromium 206 526 1 8 18 34 104 16 W 11 (4) 3200 (4) 648b 4455 1296000 -Cobal t 113 295 19 22 36 40 NC NC NC NC NC NC

fMgtimi-^ztm zmisectmi iMiMM wmmi M^iiiiampii iiJiiM 189 iiiiiiiiiisiiiiiilaquo3iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifii iiiiiiiiiiiliiiii^-iiiii isiiiiiiiiiiisiiiii CJiiiiiijiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiStCiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM bullsiiiii iiiiiiili5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiigtireii iiiiiiii-shy bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull iiiiiiliiiiiiWiii bull bull laquo raquo - iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiilifii iiiiiiiiiiii iii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii l i i i i i i i i i i^ i l l l i s i i iiiiii i-iiiiiiiSiiiiiiisiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|fltii- 405000 iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiwii iiiiAiiishymBmmm imampmm WmMM Wimm iiiiillili iiiiiiiiliiiiiii

Lead 43 i t3 21 168 l i 37 30 168 14 (3) 054 p) NC 5670 219 NC

Magnes ium 42400 148000 3950 8990 8630 21100 5040 11200 NC NC NC NC NC NC

iiititlj^iusibiii^j iilllJii^ -M-W^M iiiiiiii^^i^ ii-|7laquo- L5W iiiiiiiiiiiiiilliiifii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiltiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii ii5iiiiiiie iiiiiiiiiiii bullbull bull l t raquo iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNC iiiiiiii isci i i i | | i i i | | i p i i II0M^I iiiiiliiiiiiiiilii WM^MmM ilillilflil i | | | l il |o| | l i i l i P liiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiip8iii bullbull ( U si i l i l i iiiiii- iiii-li|i5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiipiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiii -i- o-iil bull iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiii laquoiii

Nicke l 164 452 64 104 643 (3) 33 (3) 3800 260415 13365 1539000 -Potaaaium 13100 33400 2800 5420 4580 9790 3280 5780 NC NC NC NC NC NC

i|i3laquo|i |s||i ilsectiampim illii|li MmMm iiliil|^i7ii il-lii^|iiraquoiii- (iiltii iliiiiiii^iiiiili^^^ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiii2iwiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiliis lt 6800 ii5iiiiiiiyilaquoJpll i iiiiiiiiiifiiil ^iiilOWi iiiiiii3^lHWraquoi iiiiii--i

|i|||ii Iliii illl|iillSI |illliSl^| illillaquoii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiliiltiii laquo raquo iiiiiiiiiiiii||i||| iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii|i|ltoigttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiliiiiilii iiiiiiiiiiiii bull^bull i l iNc| i-|iiiii -i-iii ii gti5 i iiiiiiiili^^ iiiiiiiiiiii Oiiiiiiii|i bulliiiiiiii Sodium 14100 28900 12500 26raquo00 16320 33200 16300 68000 N c NC NC Nc NC Nc Thal l ium 10 10 58 10 1400 (1) 40 (1) 32 567000 16200 1296

igtPiiiilli MmmmiM liilililil iiliiiiisii iii|ii| bulliiii iiiiiisiiilii iiiiiiiiiiiii|i ii^|i iiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii iiiiiiii ii^iliiiiiiiNiilliiiiiiiji- bulli|iiiiiflaquoSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii|lNe-|i-ii iiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Nc iiiiiii liiNCii iiiiiii iiiiiiiilifiei iiiii iiiiiii iilaquo|||il| mmmmi m m m i M iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisil i iiiisiiiiilllii iiiiliiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiitii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiii iiiiiiliili-|s4ii iiilliiiiiiii ssiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii^^iii-iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii 13365 iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiip^ P b a i e I RI sampling conducted in M a y 1988 Phase II RI samplmg conducted in Apri l 1989

N C = N o cri teria exiata for th is compotmd

N A = N o t Available

(1) Insufficient Data to Develop Cri ter ia Value presented is L O E L - Lowest Observed Effect Level

(2) Value preaented for careinogena ia the 10-S level

(3) Hardness dependent c r i te r ia (25 mgA C A C 0 3 uaed)

(4) Value presented is for Ihe m o r e toxic hexavalent form

(5) Value presented is proposed (more conservat ive)

(6) Effluent Discharge L imi t dilution factor based upon an effluent discbarge of 5 gpm to the Neponse t River during the 7 - d a y low flow lOyr recurrence (2020gpm)

USOS Pleasant Street Oaug ing atation on the Neponset River

(7) Dilut ion factor =[(Sgpm+2020gpm)Sgpm]= 405

(lO)Concentration exceeds effluent discharge limit contaminant must be removed by Groundwate r Treatment Plant before discharge to Ihe Neponset River [ D = D A I L Y M A X A = A V O M O N T H L Y F=FISH]

c and 1-3 for effluent (Uscharge limits for organic and inorganic compounds An acute toxicity

test showed that no toxic effect was observed for the interim treatment discharge

114 Conclusions

Based on the results of the Phase I bench scale treatabUity study the combined unit

operations of fUtration foUowed by carbon adsorption were effective in treating the

contaminated groundwater coUected during the pumping tests for temporary discharge to the

Neponset River A sample of the discharge was coUected during the groundwater treatment

and it was found to contain less than the quantitation limit of 05 xgL of PCB The metals

concentrations were aU determined to be below the discharge criteria A sample was also

coUected and submitted for an acute toxicity determination The resuUs showed that no toxic

effect was observed The bench scale treatability results and the on-line discharge analyses

demonstrate that the filtration and carbon adsorption unit operations were effective temporary

treatment techniques

^ 12 FULL SCALE STUDY

A groundwater treatability study was conducted to evaluate the performance of four different

treatment processes on contaminated groundwater obtained from the Norwood PCB site The

contaminants present in the groundwater were determined during previous studies conducted

in May 1988 and AprU 1989 by EBASCO Chapter 1 of the Final FeasibUity Study

(EBASCO 1989c) contains an overview of the results obtained during these investigations

Based on the resuUs of the May 1988 and AprU 1989 field investigations EPA concluded

that the overburden and bedrock aquifers beneath the site were contaminated with

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and volatUe and semivolatile organic compounds (VOCs

and SVOCs) It was determined that surficial and subsurface soUs dredge pUes of sediments

taken from Meadow Brook sediments in Meadow Brook and sediments in the drainage

system of the buUding operated by Grant Gear were the sources of the contamination In

r

c September 1989 EPA released the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Norwood PCB site In

the ROD EPA directed that groundwater be treated with a system including activated carbon

air stripping with vapor controls and precipitationfiltration iEPA also directed that

treatability studies or pUot studies be conducted to aid in the overaU design of the system

In accordance with the ROD a bench scale treatabUity study was conducted at the ENSECO

Laboratory Facility in Cambridge Massachusetts by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel between

January 14 and February 16 1992 This report presents a description of the work

completed resuUs and conclusions of the study

121 Objectives

The fuU-scale groundwater treatability study was conducted to determine if treatment

consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping and carbon adsorption would effectively

remove the contamination present in the groundwater at the Norwood PCB site to appUcable

standards Information on the percent reduction of organic and inorganic compounds in the

groundwater volume type of residual and byproducts produced by each component were

also investigated A schematic detailing the treatability study and the sampling and analysis

conducted is presented in Figure 1-1

122 Description of Work

The treatability study was performed in accordance with Pre-Design Work Plan 3 and the

QuaUty Assurance Project Plan for the Phase n Bench-Scale TreatabiUty Study (Work

Plan 3)

Groundwater samples were coUected from the Norwood PCB site for use in this

investigation Interim sampling was performed on effluent streams generated from each

bench-scale process for analysis according to Table 1-4 Influent and final effluent samples

generated during the groundwater treatabiUty were coUected and analyzed through the CLP

^

o JAR TESTING SAMPLE ID

o

POLYMER TESTING

RAW GROUNDWATER

VOL 1 SVOL I p PCB f ^ ^ METALS

mdash SST

T

T

T

SS - Choose Polymer T ar)d Dose Estimate pH pf i After Coagu lant

Jar Test 1 PH10 bull

Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

Ume wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

Jar Test 2 pH9

Jar Test 3 pH8

bull

Lime w C oag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

JT1 -1 shy

j r i -2 shy

JT1 -3 shy

JTI-4

j r 2 - 1

JT2-2 shy

JT2-3

j r2-4 bull

JT3-1 shy

JT3-2shy

JT3-3 bull

JT3-4 shy

HLTRATION TESTING

RIter Paper 1 - SS T Time mdash |

RIter Paper 2 - SS T Time-

Rlter Paper 3 - SS T Time -

CtHXise Filter Paper or Particle Retention Size

Sample Well Using Bailer

VOL SVOL PCB CLPMETALS (PPF-1)

Precipitate and Filter Using Optimized Polymer pH Coagulant and Filter

lt

AIR STRIPPING

AJrWater Ratio 1

AirWater Ratio 2

AirWater Ratio3 ~

VOLmdash1

-VOL

-VOLmdash

SAMPLE ID CARBON ADSORPTION (All by CLP)

Carbon mdashVOL SVOL Metals AC-1

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-2

Dose 3 mdash ^ deg shy reg ^ deg ^^reg ^ ^

Carbon

Dose1

Carbon Dose 2

Cartwn

Dose 4

Cartxjn Dose 1

Carbon Dose2~

Carbon Dose 3

Carbon Dose4~

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-4

-VOL C-1

-VOL SVOL Metals C-2

-VOL PCB C-3

bull VOL SVOL Chronic Toxicity C-4

Jar Test 4 pH 10 Dup

bull

- Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

Jr4-1

JT4-2

JT4-3

Carbon Doses

Cartxgtn Dose 6

-VOL SVOL PCB

mdash VOL Metals

C-5

C-6

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals JT4-4

VOL = Volatile Organics SVOL = Semi Volatile Organics

Carbon Dose 7

mdashVOL SVOL C-7

SS = Suspended Solids

NaOH-MNAL JT5-1 T = Turbidity

Jar Test 5 pHIO

NaOH - wPolymer - MN AL

NaOH wPoly wCoag RItered - MN AL

JT5-2

JT5-3

NaOH wPdy wCoag Aerated andRItered - MN AL

JT5-4

^ NaOH wPdy wCoag PermanganateRItered - MN M

JT5-5

J O Special FIGURE 1-1 TREATABILITY STUDY

Optimize pH Decide Ume or NaOH

SAMPUNG AND ANALYSIS SCHEMATIC

Compare Polymer vs Coagulant

(J DF222658HW

c

c

TABLE 1-4 TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Number Bench Scale Process

Groundwater Treatability Study

Initial Groundwater

Preliminary Polymer Testing

Precipitation Supemant

FUtration Effluent

Metals Sludge Precipitated and FUtered Effluent with Groundwater CoUected with BaUer

Air Stripping Effluent

Air Stripped Carbon Adsorption Effluent

Non Air Stripped Carbon Effluent

Sludge Sample

Rock Washing Study

Initial Rocks Initial Gravel from roof Stone from Cap Washed Rocks Washed Stones

Samples

1

1 1

16 16 16

3 3

1 2 2 2

3

4 4 2 2

7 4 2 2 1 1

3 5 6 3 1

Analysis

VolatUes SemivolatUes PCB Metals Suspended SoUds pH Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity Metals VolatUe Organics

Suspended SoUds TuAidity

PCB VolatUe Organics PCB SemivolatUe Organics

VolatUe Organics

SemivolatUe Organics VolatUe Organics Metals PCB

VolatUe Organics SemivolatUe Organics Metals PCB Chronic Toxicity PCBs Metals

PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB

Laboratory

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

c

c

c

system for volatUes semivolatUes PCBs and metals AU interim samples were analyzed at

ENSECO in Cambridge Massachusetts AU data was vaUdated by MampE according to the

QAPP

1221 Groundwater Sample CoUection Groundwater for this study was coUected from

weUs MW-IA and ME-8 as shown on Figure 1-2 iMW-lA was chosen as a sampling

location because it was determined to be one of the most contaminated weUs on-site based

on previous investigations During the course of the treatabiUty study a decision was made

to obtain samples from ME-8 because results of the most recent sampling effort conducted by

ICF indicated that groundwater from this weU contained approximately 200 xgL vinyl

chloride whereas groundwater from MW-IA no longer contained any quantifiable amount

Removal of vinyl chloride by aeration needed to be demonstrated during this investigation

because vinyl chloride is not effectively removed by carbon adsorption

Groundwater samples were obtained on four separate occasions during the study as shown in

Table 1-5 On each occasion the groundwater was coUected in accordance with the Field

Sampling Plan Three weU volumes of water were purged from the weU using a centrifiigal

pump before any samples were coUected The pH temperature and conductivity of the

purge water was measured after each weU volume untU the measured values differed by less

than 10 for three consecutive samples to ensure the sample drawn was representative of the

water in the aquifer Samples for the metals precipitation and filtration study were coUected

using a centrifugal pump Samples for the air stripping and carbon adsorption study were

coUected with a teflon baUer to minimize aeration and possible loss of volatUes during

sample coUection

The samples were coUected in one gallon amber glass bottles and stored at 4degC Each

sample bottle wasfiUed to exclude a headspace in the bottle

e 10

200 200

SCALE IN FEET

D CAP ROCK SAMPLE LOCATION

bull WELLS

nOURE 1-2 GROUNDWATER AND TRENCH AND CAP

ROCK SAMPLING LOCATIONS

11

E T C A L F a EDDY

c TABLE 1-5 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING SUMMARY

Mode of Date WeU Amount Sampled pH Temp degC Conductivity SampUng

11392 MW-IA 10 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm pump

12792 MW-IA 16 gaUons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20392 MW-IA 16 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20592 ME-8 2 gallons 64 8deg 230 umhocm baUer

1222 Precipitation Testing

General Chemical precipitation for the removal of metals was evaluated at three pH values

and three polymer dosages to determine the effectiveness of the treatment A preliminary

evaluation of different coagulants and polymers was conducted at three pH values by

r Metcalf amp Eddy personnel and a leading polymer vendor to determine which chemicals could

potentiaUy be used to precipitate groundwater Based on the results from the preliminary

evaluation jar tests were conducted by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel to aid in the determination

of the chemical dosages required to optimize the effectiveness of precipitation

Polymer and Coagulent Testing Polymer testing was performed by Metcalf amp Eddy and a

leading polymer vendor at the ENSECO laboratory faciUty in Cambridge Massachusetts

The effectiveness of anionic cationic and nonioiuc polymer was evaluated at three pH

values The best polymer was determined to be Drewfloc 2270 a low charge anionic high

molecular weight polymer This polymer was used in jar tests 1 through 5 The best

coagulent was determined to be Charge Pack 12 (CP-12) a higher charge cationic low

molecular weight coagulent The CP-12 coagulent was used in jar tests 1 through 5

described under jar testing

12 c

InitiaUy the effects of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was investigated Tests c were conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 with sodium hydroxide which had the best

settling characteristics based on visual observation and turbidity measurement Each polymer

was then tested at pH = 100 to evaluate Us effectiveness under optimum pH conditions

A formula of polymer and coagulant addition was developed based on visual observations

suspended soUds and turbidity analyses performed on each sample generated during the

investigation The anionic polymer effectively flocculated the existing smaU suspended

particles and the addkion of cationic coagulant removed iron and color when the pH was

raised to 100

Jar Testing Five jar tests were performed using the polymer and coagulants determined to

be effective during preliminary testing Jar tests 1 and 4 were conducted as dupUcates at

ph 10 Jar test 2 was conducted at pH 9 jar test 3 was conducted at pH 8 and jar test 5 was

conducted at pH 10 On each occasion prior to beginning the jar test the raw groundwater

was brought tol5deg-17degCina warm water bath The temperature was held constant to c eliminate the effects of temperature on reaction rates and solubUity

The foUowing is a description of activities conducted during the jar tests fti through 4 See

Figure 1-1 for details Four samples were evaluated during each jar test For each jar test

four 15 Uter beakers were fiUed with 1 Uter of raw groundwater The beakers were placed

on the stirrer platform and the paddles were lowered into the sample The jar stirrer was

operated at 80 revolutions per minute (rpm) The pH was then adjusted to the desired value

(pH = 10 9 8 10 for Tests 1 2 3 4) with a lime slurry in two samples and with a

sodium hydroxide solution (25) in the remaining two samples Lime was added to

investigate its effects on the precipitate and to evaluate its effectiveness in pH adjustment

The cationic coagulant was then added to each sample untU the concentration in solution was

30 mgL The solution was stirred at 80 rpm for 2 minutes to ensure complete mixing The

polymer was then added to one sample pH adjusted with sodium hydroxide and one sample

pH adjusted with lime Mixing continued for two minutes Next the solution was stirred

13 c

slowly orflocculated for five minutes at 20 rpm FinaUy the solutions were aUowed to

c settle for 10 minutes Visual observations were recorded and samples were submitted for

suspended soUds turbidity and metals analyses

Jar test 5 was performed to assess the removal of manganese and aluminum by preaeration

and permanganate additions (see Figure 1-1) Because no significant benefit was observed in

the previous tests when lime was used instead of sodium hydroxide sodium hydroxide was

used to adjust the pH in aU four samples to a pH of 100 in jar test 5 Only sodium

hydroxide was added to the groundwater in the first jar to determine the removal of

manganese and aluminum attributable to the formation of an insoluble salt at high pH

Sodium hydroxide and polymer were added to the second jar to evaluate the effectiveness of

the polymer Sodium hydroxide polymer and coagulant were added to sample 4 The

supemate from sample 4 was then fUtered This was performed to determine if the required

removal efficiencies could be achieved by chemical precipitation and filtration

Permanganate was added to sample 3 in addition to sodium hydroxide coagulant and

polymer to determine if the manganese and aluminum present could be chemicaUy oxidized c to a less soluble state which would enhance the efficiency of fUtration The supemate was

then siphoned off using clean tygon tubing and a syringe into the sample containers

Samples were submitted for metals suspended soUds and turbidity as illustrated on

Figure 1-1

1223 Filtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was perfonned to determine the

optimum pore size of filter media that could effectively remove the suspended soUds in the

precipitated groundwater The determination of the removal efficiency for each filter was

based on the concentration of suspended soUds and turbidity of the filtered water The time

required to filter the groundwater was also evaluated

Prior to filtration the metals in the groundwater were precipitated and coagulent and polymer

were added using the optimum conditions developed during the precipitation study The

optimum conditions consisted of pH adjustment to 10 with sodium hydroxide addition of

14 c

coagulent CP-12 to a concentration of one percent and addition of Drewfloc 2270 polymer to

c a concentration of 10 mgl Three grades (10 xm 5 xm and 1 xm pore sizes) of filter

paper were used with a Buchner ftmnel to filter aUquots of the precipitated groundwater

Samples of the filtered water were submitted to ENSECO for suspended soUds and turbidity

analysis

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge was coUected during the treatability study The

sludge sample was submitted to the CLP system for PCB and metals analysis so that a

characterization of the sludge could be made and disposal options could be evaluated

1224 Air Stripping Testing Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at three

different air to water ratios to determine the most effective stripping ratio To ensure that

worst case volatUe organic compound concentrations were present in the samples for this

study some modifications were made in how the sample was coUected and treated First

the groundwater was coUected with a baUer to prevent the loss of volatUes AdditionaUy the

water was fUtered under positive pressure foUowing the precipitation step to minimize the c loss of volatUes that would result if the water was filtered using a vacuum pump

An aquarium pump tygon tubing and aeration stone with a glass-fiber fUter cartridge was

used to aerate 1-Uter aUquots of precipitated and filtered groundwater The aeration flow

rate was caUbrated by filling a graduated cylinder with air that had been filled with tap water

and inverted in a water bath The air was diffused at 375 missec into 1-Uter aUquots of

groundwater and the time measured as iUustrated in Table 1-6 The aerated groundwater was

submitted to ENSECO for volatUe organics analysis

1225 Carbon Adsorption Testing The effectiveness of activated carbon for the removal

of organic compounds in the groundwater at the site was evaluated The carbon used was

the powdered activated 325 mesh carbon suppUed by Calgon Corporation The groundwater

samples used for this investigation were obtained and filtered as described in the air stripping

15 c

c

c

TABLE 1-6 AERATION TEST OPERATIONS

Air to Water Ratio Volume Volume of by Volume of Water Air Reqd Min of Aeration

251 1000 ml 25000 ml 111 501 1000 ml 50000 ml 222 751 1000 ml 75000 ml 333

section of this report to minimize the loss of volatUes A total of twelve samples were mn

during this investigation The necessity of air stripping was investigated by comparing the

resuUs from four samples that were air stripped to seven samples that were treated identicaUy

with the exception of air stripping AU samples for the air stripping comparison went

through the precipitation filtration and carbon adsorption processes AdditionaUy one

sample was prepared with no carbon added to serve as an untreated sample The samples are

summarized in Table 1-7 Each groundwater sample was prepared and mixed with a

predetermined dose of Calgon powdered 325 mesh activated carbon and placed m an open

Erlenmyer flask on a shaker table for a two-hour time period at 180 rpm A rotary shaker

table capable of accommodating twelve (12)-1000 ml Erlenmyer flasks was used Effluent

was fUtered with a barrel filter using a glass-fiber pre-fUter and a Whatman 45 micron

membrane The effluent clear and odorless in aU cases was added to sample containers

preserved and packed for shipment to CLP laboratories Since the shaker table could

accommodate 12 flasks a total of approximately 4 gaUons of effluent was generated during

each mn Several mns were performed to generate adequate quantities of sample for

analysis accordmg to Table 1-7 Groundwater was simUarly prepared for submittal to

Aquatec Lab in Burlington Vermont for chronic toxicity testing Three (3) shipments of

approximately 2 gaUons each were made

r 16

C) o o TABLE 1-7 CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation Filtration Aeration amp Carbon

AC-1 05 V SV MET 3400 3 1067 054 AC-2 20 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 22 AC-3 50 V SV MET 3400 3 1133 57 AC-4 100 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 110 AC-5 Trip Blank 0 V

Precipitation Filtration amp Carbon

C-0 0 V 500 1 500 0

C-1 05 V SV MET 3200 3 1067 053

c-2 10 V PCB 2200 2 1100 11

C-3 20 V SV CT 29000 24 1250 25

C-4 50 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 55

C-17 70 V MET 1200 1 1200 70

C-18 100 V SV 2200 2 1100 110

C-13 Treatability Blank 0 V PCB 2200 0 0 0

C-20 Trip Blank 0 V 0

C-10 Duplicate of C-1 05 SV 2000 2 1000 05

C-1 05 (MSMSD) 500 1 500 025

C-11 Duplicate of C-1 05 MET 1000 1 1000 05

C-20 Duplicate of C-2 10 V PCB (MSMSD)

4400 4 1100 11

C-16 Duplicate of C-4 50 PCB 2000 2 1000 50

C-6 0 PCB 2000 2 1000 0

17

o o n TABLE 1-7 (Continued) CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation amp Filtration

PPF-1 V SV MET PCB 2000 2 1000 0

Sludge

Sludge-1 0 MET PCB 0

V = VolatUe organics SV = Semivolatile organics MET = Metals PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls CT = Chronic toxicity MSMSD = Matrix spikematrix spike dup D = DupUcate TB = Trip blank PPF = Precipitated and pressure filtered

(to minimize volatUes loss as opposed to vacuum filtration)

18

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

c

EPA Contract No 68-W9-0036 EPA Work Assignment No 19-In51

EPA Project Officer Nancy Barmakian EPA Remedial Project Manager Bob Cianciarulo

VOLUME 3

BENCH-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT

GROUNDWATER AND ROCK WASHING

NORWOOD PCB SUPERFUND SITE NORWOOD MASSACHUSETTS

January 1993

Prepared by

MampE Inc Wakefield MA

c

c

TABLE OF CONTENTS

10 GROUNDWATER

11 Interim Study111 Introduction and Objectives112 Description of Work113 Results114 Conclusions

12 Full Scale Study121 Objectives122 Description of Work

1221 Groundwater Sample CoUection1222 Precipitation Testing1223 Filtration Testing1224 Air Stripping Testing1225 Carbon Absorption Testing

123 Results1231 Precipitation Testing1232 Filtration Testing1233 Air Strippmg Testing1234 Carbon Adsorption Testing

124 Conclusions

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

22 Description of Work

23 Resuhs

24 Conclusions

Page

1 1 1 2 6

6 7 7

10 12

14 15

15 19

19 22

24 24

28

37

37

39

41

c

c LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

I-l Treatability Study Sampling and Analysis Schematic 8

1-2 Groundwater and Trench and Cap Rock Sampling Locations 11

1-3 Proposed Groundwater Treatment System Schematic 30

c

c u

r LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1-1 Summary of PCB Results for Phase I Treatability Study Samples 3

1-2 Comparison of Organic Contamination in Groundwater to Effluent Discharge Levels - Temporary Discharge to the Neponset River 4

1-3 Comparison of Metal Contamination in Groundwater to Effluent Discharge Levels - Temporary Discharge to the Neponset River 5

1-4 Treatability Study Sampling and Analysis Summary 9

1-5 Groundwater SampUng Summary 12

1-6 Aeration Test Operations 16 r 1-7 CLP Treatability Study Sampling Summary 17

1-8 Preliminary Polymer Testing Results 20

1-9 FuU-Scale TreatabUity Study Jar Test Results 21

1-10 Metal Hydroxide Sludge Resuhs 23

1-11 FUtration Study Results 24

1-12 FuU-Scale TreatabUity Study Air Stripping Results for WeU MW-IA 25

1-13 FuU-Scale Treatability Study Air Stripping Results for

WeU ME-8 26

1-14 FuU-Scale Treatability Study Carbon Adsorption ResuUs 27

1-15 FuU-Scale Treatability Study Aeration and Carbon Adsorption Results 29 c m

1-16 Comparison of Inorganic FuU-Scale Treatability Study ResuUs to MCLs and Discharge Levels - Discharge to c the Neponset River 31

1-17 Comparison of Inorganic FuU-Scale Treatability Study ResuUs to MCLs and Discharge Levels shyDischarge to Meadow Brook 32

1-18 Comparison of Organic FuU-Scale Treatability Study ResuUs to MCLs and Discharge Levels shyDischarge to the Neponset River 33

1-19 Comparison of Organic FuU-Scale Treatability Study Results to MCLs and Discharge Levels shyDischarge to Meadow Brook 34

2-1 Trench Rock Washing Results 40

2-2 Interim Remedial Cap Rock Analytical Results 42

( w

IV c

Section One

10 GROUNDWATER

11 INTERIM STUDY

111 Introduction and Objectives

Performance of the pumping test phase of the hydrogeologic investigation at the Norwood

PCB site resulted in the accumulation of approximately 25000 gaUons of contaminated

groundwater In order to properly dispose of this contaminated groundwater a Phase I bench

scale treatabUity study was undertaken The objective of the treatabiUty study was to

determine whether two unit operations filtration and carbon adsorption would be effective

in treating the contaminated groundwater so that it could be discharged to the Neponset River

under a temporary permit without any adverse effects to human health or the environment

112 Description of Work

c On August 28 1991 a sample of groundwater was coUected from the Norwood PCB site for

use in the Phase I bench-scale treatability study The sample was coUected from WeU

MW-IA one of the most contaminated weUs at the Norwood PCB site The Phase I

groundwater treatability study was conducted and sample analysis performed during

September 1991 at Hydrosample Laboratory in Northboro Massachusetts

The groundwater sampling and the generation of the treatability samples was conducted in

accordance with the Interim Pre-Design Work Plan No 3 Phase I for the temporary

groundwater treatment plant Three different pore size or particle retention grades of fUter

paper were evaluated for filtration rate and PCB removal The coarse Whatman filter had a

pore size of 10 microns the medium had a pore size of 5 microns and the fine had a pore

size of 1 micron These sizes were chosen because they are the smaUest commerciaUy

avaUable sizes The filtration unit operation was evaluated both as the only treatment

technique and as the initial operation in a filtration carbon adsorption treatment scheme

1 c

c

c

For an evaluation of the carbon adsorption unit operation samples of the three fUtrates were

percolated through a 1 glass column charged with Calgon brand activated carbon Calgons

powdered activated 325 mesh carbon was recommended by Calgon for use in the bench-

scale studies because it decreases the contact time required for adsorption and can be filtered

out of the groundwater with a 045 micron pore size filter Each fUtrate was subjected to the

same carbon treatment The flow rate through the carbon column was adjusted to simulate

the fuU scale onsite carbon adsorption flow rate

113 Results

The results of the Phase I treatability study showed that PCBs the contaminants of greatest

concem were not removed by the filtration unit operation when it was employed as the only

treatment technique This indicates that the PCBs were dissolved or adhered to suspended

material finer than the smaUest commerciaUy avaUable filter pore size and that filtration

alone carmot remove PCBs to the cleanup level Activated carbon is necessary to achieve

PCB cleanup levels

The PCB results from the filtered carbon adsorbed samples indicated that the carbon

removed aU of the PCBs to a concentration of less than 05 xgL The analytical data was

vaUdated using the Data QuaUty Objective (DQO) Level HI criteria outlined in the

Groundwater Bench-Scale Phase I treatability Study QuaUty Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)

All of the analytical data was determined to be vaUd The PCB analytical resuUs are

presented in Table 1-1

One sample of the treated groundwater discharge from the interim treatment operation was

coUected on November 25 1991 The sample was analyzed and found to contain less than

050 jugL PCBs This sample was also analyzed for the twenty three Target Analyte List

(TAL) metals All of the metals concentrations were below the discharge limits calculated

based on AWQC and the flow rate of the discharge and the Neponset River See Tables 1-2

c

c

c

TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF PCB RESULTS FOR PHASE I TREATABILITY SAMPLES

Aroclor 1254 Surrogate Recoveries Concentration xgL TCMX DBC

Initial Sample 48 J 26 93 (Settled Decanted)

Coarse FUtered 63 J 57 102

Coarse FUtered DupUcate 79 140 105

Medium FUtered 59 61 108

Fine FUtered 52 78 97

Coarse FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 75 105

Medium FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 72 92

Fine FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 101

Method Blank 050 UJ 58

Pump Equipment Blank 050 UJ 36 110

TCMX = 2 4 5 6 tetrachlorometaxylene CLP 390 SOW Advisory Recovery Range 60 shy150

DBC = Dibutylchlorendate CLP 288 SOW Advisory Recovery Range 24-154

A non-PCB positive interfering compound coeluted with the DBC surrogate in the method blank therefore the surrogate recovery could not be quantitated

Aroclors 1221 1232 1242 1248 and 1260 were nondetected (050 U) in aU samples

Coarse FUter 10 micron pore size Medium FUter 5 micron pore size Fine FUter 1 micron pore size

c

o C) o TABLE 1-2 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER WITH EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

bull v - o x - - - - - - - - bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - - bull bull bull

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull gt bull bull bull bull gt bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull o gt pMWmmmXiiizz-mm^ 4SoSiSSiyS iSs DAILY - AVQ ^bull sectMMMsectMM mM i^i^^^^

W^MM^0 i ^^ ^ i ^ ^ ) ) ^ ^ ^ ^

liffiSaiArtiMifiig wampsectii^i9MMzWMM^lt

i 0 t M B W ^ SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE

-yio|ijMi i|5|laquoiilifc^ li^Oimim

PHASEn PHASE I PHASE

SURFACE BEDROCK BEDROCK

SjiA3tliilAM|li-^ isiowfciili^rBo^

(van) (uan) (uou

PHASEE

BEDROCK

fuow

iiHiisii BEDROCK

iiiiiiiiiixiii ixc ilfeiiili f-iO(3Msect

Wyt(Bm m^mmM miimmiM camamm WmM-M

|ii|iiiU-S |JipSEsiit||l ^ ^

Mi(iiteiii iciiiiitiii f-Wi^WM

ilii^y^iii illi^i^liliiiSl-liN lGipilaquooiraquoi|i|ii| ^^^ljMm$m-

MAXIMUM

EFFLUENT

DISCHARGE

bull^ bull bull L E V E L bullbullbull

(U6L) (8gt(gt)

MONTHLY

EFFLUENT

DISCHAROE

bull iLEVEL bullbull

(tlOLi (8)(9)

bull||yensi|| W0fW^iz

DISCHAROE

sectBlWW$W ( U a U (8)(9)

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull

iiil iW^

VOLATILE OROANICS

111-TricUoiocthuie 3 3 - - NC NC 170000 NC NC 68850000

M^iM^l ia i t i^^ W MMf ^ ^ i ^ M

Vinyl Chloride

mMWMimMilBMMM iil|||i||i||i|||||

14 14 73

SSi5i5

W S X i i m S M 120 23 6S 110

bull -

bull bull T

no

Wfimmim ISiMBB

NC

llliNGSM iiiipltiiii

NC

bulliiSfi4i|ii-

li PIiAlio|jifshy-3250

mimpmamp wwrnmim-NC

ampampllz-^f^C

Wwyen WM NC

170100

bull bull bull bull shy bull ^ raquo - S 5 lt gt

2126250

12-Dieliloroethene (toUl) 77 300 199 560 44 68 43 no 11600 (13) NC 1400000 (4) 4698000 NC 567000000

|||iiSi^i||laquo|||ii^^^^^^^^

Xylenei (total)

kz^z23i(iwMitiMM^^ W0$0Tisectsectg^^

6 6 shy

|isii7Pois

WlampMlMampW0 - shy shy shy

i-wip

-

z4smmm lmm0(M

NC

sSiiiraquolii(i)l iilltlaquoili

NC

i--iii ii -^lli||Piiiii

NC

ioisiaiiiSipop lsectfiMm

NC

i-Mti969M)

i - zF ^M SC

372ib0

$$laquo43

NC

bullWz-i

SEMIVOLATILES

23S-Trichioioi)beaol 10 10 - - NC NC NC NC NC NC

j|NiiwUfl|ropw^^

13-Dictiloiobeiizeiie

sectMimiMmm^ i|il||||iii|i||i

4 4 shy

i-siJ(t| ii|i WSMWiMMMiWMMM^

-

WMsect M WBWWrshy-

MiMxim- $MM^Mz

NO

m-z^mmi m^msmm NC

IM---iiiMMM WzMW Sk

2600

|Siii laquowq zz^Wlt^^

NC

bullMz-zziMii WzlMM

NC

kiMAz-iMampi WmtW^

1053000

14-Dichlorobenzeiie 14 14 48 67 shy shy shy - NC NC 2600 NC NC 1053000

| i i | l i t j | i i | i | ^

ii|ii|llllilill^ bullimMmMMiiMWMM ghif^m^MmMmiM^

iSmMMyMMsectsectMfziM^ i||||i|i |i|j|||^

bulliMMiiM ^zZ^ZzZZZZ^

^ --zllMMmd |sii|i|ii|

- ISSiiii lls-^iiil

i^iMM^i-iM wiiiW^Sz

iliiO-ii i l- iif-iiiii

WM--z ampiM fampMM

f bull iSilwiobtti

|i|3jl|i|

P C B I

Aioclor-1254 34 180 26 89 64 8 24 27 20 fT) 0014 CT) 00045 810 57 18 AF

secti^^MMMampMM^^ Aroclor-1254 (paper-filtered)

Arociot-124S

BM iM-mi-MmsectMMMiz iiili|iiililiiiliiliiiii

- - l i

liJii -rilSiiiiiil

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii l-l il shy shy -

ilJi|i i-sectsectMBsect i

-

j 0 lt7) iOjCT)

20 (7)

Oi014 (7)

001 (7)

0014 CD

immmmB WMi^MampMi

00IM5

MM--zMshyi bulll l i l i |iloi

^

-bull-iigtM

WsectM0-amp 57

nzzmmm mlBWM

18

V

Aroclof-1248 (ghit-filteRd) 4 4 shy shy shy - 20 (7) 0014 CT) 00045 810 57 18 F

Phaie I RI umpling conducted in May 1988 Phaae II RI lampling conducted in April 1989

NC bull No criteria cxitta for thia compound

(1) Inaufficient Data to Develop Criteria Value preaented ia LOEL shy Loweit Obierved Effect Level

(2) Value preaented for carelnogeiia ia the 10-5 level

(3) Value preaented ia for dichloroethenea

(4) Value preieoted ia for trana 12-dichloroetliene

(5) pH dependent criteria (78 pH uted)

(6) Value preaented ia for chlorinated benzenea

(7) Value presented ia for total PCBa

(8) Effluent DiKhaige Limit based upon an effluent discharge of 5 gpm to the Neponset River during the 7-day low flow lOyr recurrence (2O20gpm)

USGS Pleasant Street Oauging Station on the Neponset River

(9) Dilution factor =[(5gpm+2020gpm)5gpml= 405

(lO)Concentration exceeds effluent discharge limit contaminant must be removed by Groundwater Treatment Plant before discharge to surface water [D=DAILY MAX A=AVG MONTHLY F=FISH]

-

-

-

- - -

-

-

-

-

-

o n o TABLE 1-3 COMPARISON OF METAL CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER WFTH EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull bull bull bull gt gt bull gt bull bull bull bull bull - bull bulliii|vO|| iS iggJMLnei i iaD s-UNFILTEREDgssHis M-B33nsRmmMMM D A I L Y iiiiiiiiiiiiiAVGiiiiii |i mmmmMmmm Xy lira^li P H A S E I WtiiMM liwiAiiiii iiiiimiii iii-pHiwiiliiiii WampMM P H A S E I ilii iiwgiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiili|i| iiii iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii M A X I M U M iiiiipifriiii^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiiifiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

555^gt5^5V555^^^^ i i i ilaquoiij S U R F A C E m m m Wtm^itM B E D R O C K bull bull gt f t bullbullbull B E D R O C K iiiFRiiliiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiijsiiiiiriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii|iiiiiiliiiiiiii E F F L U E N T E F F L U E N T E F F L U E N T iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii wmmm |||ii||li| |i IliAiiiiil WliampiMM liiiiltiilii^isiiii liiiiifctAXliii iiiAiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^i^iibhreiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii liiiiiii iiHiiiiiiiiiiiiii- D I S C H A R O E D I S C H A R O E D I S C H A R O E iiiii imm^mi mmmn WmMm WBrnB

PARAlt4ETER W iMmm iiiiiiiii iiitjiiiii Wi^MMM iiii iiiiiiiiilii iiiaraquoliiii W-imMMi iiiiiiaiiiii mMmmmm iCSiiMAiiiiii O O N S U M P iiiiiiiVEitiiii liiiiisyifeEiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiitiiiiL iiii cii^i iiiiiifl|5iili iiiiiiili (UOW iiiiiiii (oon) iiiiult3piili (UOL) lzMcii0m (UGL) iipiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|^(Siliiiiiiiiii|iiiiii (UOL) (2) (UOL) (6)C7) (IKJL) (6)C7) (UOn) (6) C7) i^iipi

M E T A L S

A h m i n u m 154000 390000 119 352 12500 43900 74 77 NA NA NA NC NC NC

i^poundi1i liiiiiii^iii iiiiiiiPi iii|ilsi iliiiJsiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iii-iili liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii-raquoiiiilti)ij^i JiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiW)i(5i iiiiiiiiiiiiii6Pigtiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiS5iraquoii)i iiiiiitiraquo50 iiiiii3f laquoltraquollishyJ^Sn^iii-illii iiiillifil II |-Iilliiii WlampMi liiliii-ii iiiiiiiifiiiiiili 22a iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii^iiiliiiiiii iiiiiiiiN iiiiiiliiiiiiiii iii-iiiiiiiiiii ifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii fiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiii i iiiiii i j ^ i iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiip iiiiiiiii Bar ium 690 1640 67 2laquo9 53 147 97 19 NC NC NC (5) NC NC NC Beryll ium 18 32 130 (1) 53 (1) 131 52650 2147 531

|^i^ii|litx i s bull liillliSi ZZZZZZZZZ i|||i-^i - iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiii --i|yiiiWi iiiifslt^laquoiiiiiii3jiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiltfcjii i(3yiiiliii iiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiJC iiii-S iifiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMi iiiiiiilii154- bull i i - i i6laquo856i mzMkm iiiiiiiliiii ii|iijji||ii|||i 9lMMi MmiMi zZ^ mm iiiiiiiifi li^iiiiiiiiiraquoliiii 33100 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilMi^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiieiiiii^iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Pi iiiiiiiiiiiiNti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij^i

Chromium 206 526 1 8 18 34 104 16 W 11 (4) 3200 (4) 648b 4455 1296000 -Cobal t 113 295 19 22 36 40 NC NC NC NC NC NC

fMgtimi-^ztm zmisectmi iMiMM wmmi M^iiiiampii iiJiiM 189 iiiiiiiiiisiiiiiilaquo3iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifii iiiiiiiiiiiliiiii^-iiiii isiiiiiiiiiiisiiiii CJiiiiiijiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiStCiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM bullsiiiii iiiiiiili5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiigtireii iiiiiiii-shy bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull iiiiiiliiiiiiWiii bull bull laquo raquo - iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiilifii iiiiiiiiiiii iii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii l i i i i i i i i i i^ i l l l i s i i iiiiii i-iiiiiiiSiiiiiiisiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|fltii- 405000 iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiwii iiiiAiiishymBmmm imampmm WmMM Wimm iiiiillili iiiiiiiiliiiiiii

Lead 43 i t3 21 168 l i 37 30 168 14 (3) 054 p) NC 5670 219 NC

Magnes ium 42400 148000 3950 8990 8630 21100 5040 11200 NC NC NC NC NC NC

iiititlj^iusibiii^j iilllJii^ -M-W^M iiiiiiii^^i^ ii-|7laquo- L5W iiiiiiiiiiiiiilliiifii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiltiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii ii5iiiiiiie iiiiiiiiiiii bullbull bull l t raquo iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNC iiiiiiii isci i i i | | i i i | | i p i i II0M^I iiiiiliiiiiiiiilii WM^MmM ilillilflil i | | | l il |o| | l i i l i P liiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiip8iii bullbull ( U si i l i l i iiiiii- iiii-li|i5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiipiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiii -i- o-iil bull iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiii laquoiii

Nicke l 164 452 64 104 643 (3) 33 (3) 3800 260415 13365 1539000 -Potaaaium 13100 33400 2800 5420 4580 9790 3280 5780 NC NC NC NC NC NC

i|i3laquo|i |s||i ilsectiampim illii|li MmMm iiliil|^i7ii il-lii^|iiraquoiii- (iiltii iliiiiiii^iiiiili^^^ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiii2iwiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiliis lt 6800 ii5iiiiiiiyilaquoJpll i iiiiiiiiiifiiil ^iiilOWi iiiiiii3^lHWraquoi iiiiii--i

|i|||ii Iliii illl|iillSI |illliSl^| illillaquoii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiliiltiii laquo raquo iiiiiiiiiiiii||i||| iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii|i|ltoigttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiliiiiilii iiiiiiiiiiiii bull^bull i l iNc| i-|iiiii -i-iii ii gti5 i iiiiiiiili^^ iiiiiiiiiiii Oiiiiiiii|i bulliiiiiiii Sodium 14100 28900 12500 26raquo00 16320 33200 16300 68000 N c NC NC Nc NC Nc Thal l ium 10 10 58 10 1400 (1) 40 (1) 32 567000 16200 1296

igtPiiiilli MmmmiM liilililil iiliiiiisii iii|ii| bulliiii iiiiiisiiilii iiiiiiiiiiiii|i ii^|i iiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii iiiiiiii ii^iliiiiiiiNiilliiiiiiiji- bulli|iiiiiflaquoSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii|lNe-|i-ii iiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Nc iiiiiii liiNCii iiiiiii iiiiiiiilifiei iiiii iiiiiii iilaquo|||il| mmmmi m m m i M iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisil i iiiisiiiiilllii iiiiliiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiitii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiii iiiiiiliili-|s4ii iiilliiiiiiii ssiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii^^iii-iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii 13365 iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiip^ P b a i e I RI sampling conducted in M a y 1988 Phase II RI samplmg conducted in Apri l 1989

N C = N o cri teria exiata for th is compotmd

N A = N o t Available

(1) Insufficient Data to Develop Cri ter ia Value presented is L O E L - Lowest Observed Effect Level

(2) Value preaented for careinogena ia the 10-S level

(3) Hardness dependent c r i te r ia (25 mgA C A C 0 3 uaed)

(4) Value presented is for Ihe m o r e toxic hexavalent form

(5) Value presented is proposed (more conservat ive)

(6) Effluent Discharge L imi t dilution factor based upon an effluent discbarge of 5 gpm to the Neponse t River during the 7 - d a y low flow lOyr recurrence (2020gpm)

USOS Pleasant Street Oaug ing atation on the Neponset River

(7) Dilut ion factor =[(Sgpm+2020gpm)Sgpm]= 405

(lO)Concentration exceeds effluent discharge limit contaminant must be removed by Groundwate r Treatment Plant before discharge to Ihe Neponset River [ D = D A I L Y M A X A = A V O M O N T H L Y F=FISH]

c and 1-3 for effluent (Uscharge limits for organic and inorganic compounds An acute toxicity

test showed that no toxic effect was observed for the interim treatment discharge

114 Conclusions

Based on the results of the Phase I bench scale treatabUity study the combined unit

operations of fUtration foUowed by carbon adsorption were effective in treating the

contaminated groundwater coUected during the pumping tests for temporary discharge to the

Neponset River A sample of the discharge was coUected during the groundwater treatment

and it was found to contain less than the quantitation limit of 05 xgL of PCB The metals

concentrations were aU determined to be below the discharge criteria A sample was also

coUected and submitted for an acute toxicity determination The resuUs showed that no toxic

effect was observed The bench scale treatability results and the on-line discharge analyses

demonstrate that the filtration and carbon adsorption unit operations were effective temporary

treatment techniques

^ 12 FULL SCALE STUDY

A groundwater treatability study was conducted to evaluate the performance of four different

treatment processes on contaminated groundwater obtained from the Norwood PCB site The

contaminants present in the groundwater were determined during previous studies conducted

in May 1988 and AprU 1989 by EBASCO Chapter 1 of the Final FeasibUity Study

(EBASCO 1989c) contains an overview of the results obtained during these investigations

Based on the resuUs of the May 1988 and AprU 1989 field investigations EPA concluded

that the overburden and bedrock aquifers beneath the site were contaminated with

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and volatUe and semivolatile organic compounds (VOCs

and SVOCs) It was determined that surficial and subsurface soUs dredge pUes of sediments

taken from Meadow Brook sediments in Meadow Brook and sediments in the drainage

system of the buUding operated by Grant Gear were the sources of the contamination In

r

c September 1989 EPA released the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Norwood PCB site In

the ROD EPA directed that groundwater be treated with a system including activated carbon

air stripping with vapor controls and precipitationfiltration iEPA also directed that

treatability studies or pUot studies be conducted to aid in the overaU design of the system

In accordance with the ROD a bench scale treatabUity study was conducted at the ENSECO

Laboratory Facility in Cambridge Massachusetts by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel between

January 14 and February 16 1992 This report presents a description of the work

completed resuUs and conclusions of the study

121 Objectives

The fuU-scale groundwater treatability study was conducted to determine if treatment

consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping and carbon adsorption would effectively

remove the contamination present in the groundwater at the Norwood PCB site to appUcable

standards Information on the percent reduction of organic and inorganic compounds in the

groundwater volume type of residual and byproducts produced by each component were

also investigated A schematic detailing the treatability study and the sampling and analysis

conducted is presented in Figure 1-1

122 Description of Work

The treatability study was performed in accordance with Pre-Design Work Plan 3 and the

QuaUty Assurance Project Plan for the Phase n Bench-Scale TreatabiUty Study (Work

Plan 3)

Groundwater samples were coUected from the Norwood PCB site for use in this

investigation Interim sampling was performed on effluent streams generated from each

bench-scale process for analysis according to Table 1-4 Influent and final effluent samples

generated during the groundwater treatabiUty were coUected and analyzed through the CLP

^

o JAR TESTING SAMPLE ID

o

POLYMER TESTING

RAW GROUNDWATER

VOL 1 SVOL I p PCB f ^ ^ METALS

mdash SST

T

T

T

SS - Choose Polymer T ar)d Dose Estimate pH pf i After Coagu lant

Jar Test 1 PH10 bull

Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

Ume wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

Jar Test 2 pH9

Jar Test 3 pH8

bull

Lime w C oag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

JT1 -1 shy

j r i -2 shy

JT1 -3 shy

JTI-4

j r 2 - 1

JT2-2 shy

JT2-3

j r2-4 bull

JT3-1 shy

JT3-2shy

JT3-3 bull

JT3-4 shy

HLTRATION TESTING

RIter Paper 1 - SS T Time mdash |

RIter Paper 2 - SS T Time-

Rlter Paper 3 - SS T Time -

CtHXise Filter Paper or Particle Retention Size

Sample Well Using Bailer

VOL SVOL PCB CLPMETALS (PPF-1)

Precipitate and Filter Using Optimized Polymer pH Coagulant and Filter

lt

AIR STRIPPING

AJrWater Ratio 1

AirWater Ratio 2

AirWater Ratio3 ~

VOLmdash1

-VOL

-VOLmdash

SAMPLE ID CARBON ADSORPTION (All by CLP)

Carbon mdashVOL SVOL Metals AC-1

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-2

Dose 3 mdash ^ deg shy reg ^ deg ^^reg ^ ^

Carbon

Dose1

Carbon Dose 2

Cartwn

Dose 4

Cartxjn Dose 1

Carbon Dose2~

Carbon Dose 3

Carbon Dose4~

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-4

-VOL C-1

-VOL SVOL Metals C-2

-VOL PCB C-3

bull VOL SVOL Chronic Toxicity C-4

Jar Test 4 pH 10 Dup

bull

- Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

Jr4-1

JT4-2

JT4-3

Carbon Doses

Cartxgtn Dose 6

-VOL SVOL PCB

mdash VOL Metals

C-5

C-6

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals JT4-4

VOL = Volatile Organics SVOL = Semi Volatile Organics

Carbon Dose 7

mdashVOL SVOL C-7

SS = Suspended Solids

NaOH-MNAL JT5-1 T = Turbidity

Jar Test 5 pHIO

NaOH - wPolymer - MN AL

NaOH wPoly wCoag RItered - MN AL

JT5-2

JT5-3

NaOH wPdy wCoag Aerated andRItered - MN AL

JT5-4

^ NaOH wPdy wCoag PermanganateRItered - MN M

JT5-5

J O Special FIGURE 1-1 TREATABILITY STUDY

Optimize pH Decide Ume or NaOH

SAMPUNG AND ANALYSIS SCHEMATIC

Compare Polymer vs Coagulant

(J DF222658HW

c

c

TABLE 1-4 TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Number Bench Scale Process

Groundwater Treatability Study

Initial Groundwater

Preliminary Polymer Testing

Precipitation Supemant

FUtration Effluent

Metals Sludge Precipitated and FUtered Effluent with Groundwater CoUected with BaUer

Air Stripping Effluent

Air Stripped Carbon Adsorption Effluent

Non Air Stripped Carbon Effluent

Sludge Sample

Rock Washing Study

Initial Rocks Initial Gravel from roof Stone from Cap Washed Rocks Washed Stones

Samples

1

1 1

16 16 16

3 3

1 2 2 2

3

4 4 2 2

7 4 2 2 1 1

3 5 6 3 1

Analysis

VolatUes SemivolatUes PCB Metals Suspended SoUds pH Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity Metals VolatUe Organics

Suspended SoUds TuAidity

PCB VolatUe Organics PCB SemivolatUe Organics

VolatUe Organics

SemivolatUe Organics VolatUe Organics Metals PCB

VolatUe Organics SemivolatUe Organics Metals PCB Chronic Toxicity PCBs Metals

PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB

Laboratory

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

c

c

c

system for volatUes semivolatUes PCBs and metals AU interim samples were analyzed at

ENSECO in Cambridge Massachusetts AU data was vaUdated by MampE according to the

QAPP

1221 Groundwater Sample CoUection Groundwater for this study was coUected from

weUs MW-IA and ME-8 as shown on Figure 1-2 iMW-lA was chosen as a sampling

location because it was determined to be one of the most contaminated weUs on-site based

on previous investigations During the course of the treatabiUty study a decision was made

to obtain samples from ME-8 because results of the most recent sampling effort conducted by

ICF indicated that groundwater from this weU contained approximately 200 xgL vinyl

chloride whereas groundwater from MW-IA no longer contained any quantifiable amount

Removal of vinyl chloride by aeration needed to be demonstrated during this investigation

because vinyl chloride is not effectively removed by carbon adsorption

Groundwater samples were obtained on four separate occasions during the study as shown in

Table 1-5 On each occasion the groundwater was coUected in accordance with the Field

Sampling Plan Three weU volumes of water were purged from the weU using a centrifiigal

pump before any samples were coUected The pH temperature and conductivity of the

purge water was measured after each weU volume untU the measured values differed by less

than 10 for three consecutive samples to ensure the sample drawn was representative of the

water in the aquifer Samples for the metals precipitation and filtration study were coUected

using a centrifugal pump Samples for the air stripping and carbon adsorption study were

coUected with a teflon baUer to minimize aeration and possible loss of volatUes during

sample coUection

The samples were coUected in one gallon amber glass bottles and stored at 4degC Each

sample bottle wasfiUed to exclude a headspace in the bottle

e 10

200 200

SCALE IN FEET

D CAP ROCK SAMPLE LOCATION

bull WELLS

nOURE 1-2 GROUNDWATER AND TRENCH AND CAP

ROCK SAMPLING LOCATIONS

11

E T C A L F a EDDY

c TABLE 1-5 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING SUMMARY

Mode of Date WeU Amount Sampled pH Temp degC Conductivity SampUng

11392 MW-IA 10 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm pump

12792 MW-IA 16 gaUons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20392 MW-IA 16 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20592 ME-8 2 gallons 64 8deg 230 umhocm baUer

1222 Precipitation Testing

General Chemical precipitation for the removal of metals was evaluated at three pH values

and three polymer dosages to determine the effectiveness of the treatment A preliminary

evaluation of different coagulants and polymers was conducted at three pH values by

r Metcalf amp Eddy personnel and a leading polymer vendor to determine which chemicals could

potentiaUy be used to precipitate groundwater Based on the results from the preliminary

evaluation jar tests were conducted by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel to aid in the determination

of the chemical dosages required to optimize the effectiveness of precipitation

Polymer and Coagulent Testing Polymer testing was performed by Metcalf amp Eddy and a

leading polymer vendor at the ENSECO laboratory faciUty in Cambridge Massachusetts

The effectiveness of anionic cationic and nonioiuc polymer was evaluated at three pH

values The best polymer was determined to be Drewfloc 2270 a low charge anionic high

molecular weight polymer This polymer was used in jar tests 1 through 5 The best

coagulent was determined to be Charge Pack 12 (CP-12) a higher charge cationic low

molecular weight coagulent The CP-12 coagulent was used in jar tests 1 through 5

described under jar testing

12 c

InitiaUy the effects of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was investigated Tests c were conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 with sodium hydroxide which had the best

settling characteristics based on visual observation and turbidity measurement Each polymer

was then tested at pH = 100 to evaluate Us effectiveness under optimum pH conditions

A formula of polymer and coagulant addition was developed based on visual observations

suspended soUds and turbidity analyses performed on each sample generated during the

investigation The anionic polymer effectively flocculated the existing smaU suspended

particles and the addkion of cationic coagulant removed iron and color when the pH was

raised to 100

Jar Testing Five jar tests were performed using the polymer and coagulants determined to

be effective during preliminary testing Jar tests 1 and 4 were conducted as dupUcates at

ph 10 Jar test 2 was conducted at pH 9 jar test 3 was conducted at pH 8 and jar test 5 was

conducted at pH 10 On each occasion prior to beginning the jar test the raw groundwater

was brought tol5deg-17degCina warm water bath The temperature was held constant to c eliminate the effects of temperature on reaction rates and solubUity

The foUowing is a description of activities conducted during the jar tests fti through 4 See

Figure 1-1 for details Four samples were evaluated during each jar test For each jar test

four 15 Uter beakers were fiUed with 1 Uter of raw groundwater The beakers were placed

on the stirrer platform and the paddles were lowered into the sample The jar stirrer was

operated at 80 revolutions per minute (rpm) The pH was then adjusted to the desired value

(pH = 10 9 8 10 for Tests 1 2 3 4) with a lime slurry in two samples and with a

sodium hydroxide solution (25) in the remaining two samples Lime was added to

investigate its effects on the precipitate and to evaluate its effectiveness in pH adjustment

The cationic coagulant was then added to each sample untU the concentration in solution was

30 mgL The solution was stirred at 80 rpm for 2 minutes to ensure complete mixing The

polymer was then added to one sample pH adjusted with sodium hydroxide and one sample

pH adjusted with lime Mixing continued for two minutes Next the solution was stirred

13 c

slowly orflocculated for five minutes at 20 rpm FinaUy the solutions were aUowed to

c settle for 10 minutes Visual observations were recorded and samples were submitted for

suspended soUds turbidity and metals analyses

Jar test 5 was performed to assess the removal of manganese and aluminum by preaeration

and permanganate additions (see Figure 1-1) Because no significant benefit was observed in

the previous tests when lime was used instead of sodium hydroxide sodium hydroxide was

used to adjust the pH in aU four samples to a pH of 100 in jar test 5 Only sodium

hydroxide was added to the groundwater in the first jar to determine the removal of

manganese and aluminum attributable to the formation of an insoluble salt at high pH

Sodium hydroxide and polymer were added to the second jar to evaluate the effectiveness of

the polymer Sodium hydroxide polymer and coagulant were added to sample 4 The

supemate from sample 4 was then fUtered This was performed to determine if the required

removal efficiencies could be achieved by chemical precipitation and filtration

Permanganate was added to sample 3 in addition to sodium hydroxide coagulant and

polymer to determine if the manganese and aluminum present could be chemicaUy oxidized c to a less soluble state which would enhance the efficiency of fUtration The supemate was

then siphoned off using clean tygon tubing and a syringe into the sample containers

Samples were submitted for metals suspended soUds and turbidity as illustrated on

Figure 1-1

1223 Filtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was perfonned to determine the

optimum pore size of filter media that could effectively remove the suspended soUds in the

precipitated groundwater The determination of the removal efficiency for each filter was

based on the concentration of suspended soUds and turbidity of the filtered water The time

required to filter the groundwater was also evaluated

Prior to filtration the metals in the groundwater were precipitated and coagulent and polymer

were added using the optimum conditions developed during the precipitation study The

optimum conditions consisted of pH adjustment to 10 with sodium hydroxide addition of

14 c

coagulent CP-12 to a concentration of one percent and addition of Drewfloc 2270 polymer to

c a concentration of 10 mgl Three grades (10 xm 5 xm and 1 xm pore sizes) of filter

paper were used with a Buchner ftmnel to filter aUquots of the precipitated groundwater

Samples of the filtered water were submitted to ENSECO for suspended soUds and turbidity

analysis

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge was coUected during the treatability study The

sludge sample was submitted to the CLP system for PCB and metals analysis so that a

characterization of the sludge could be made and disposal options could be evaluated

1224 Air Stripping Testing Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at three

different air to water ratios to determine the most effective stripping ratio To ensure that

worst case volatUe organic compound concentrations were present in the samples for this

study some modifications were made in how the sample was coUected and treated First

the groundwater was coUected with a baUer to prevent the loss of volatUes AdditionaUy the

water was fUtered under positive pressure foUowing the precipitation step to minimize the c loss of volatUes that would result if the water was filtered using a vacuum pump

An aquarium pump tygon tubing and aeration stone with a glass-fiber fUter cartridge was

used to aerate 1-Uter aUquots of precipitated and filtered groundwater The aeration flow

rate was caUbrated by filling a graduated cylinder with air that had been filled with tap water

and inverted in a water bath The air was diffused at 375 missec into 1-Uter aUquots of

groundwater and the time measured as iUustrated in Table 1-6 The aerated groundwater was

submitted to ENSECO for volatUe organics analysis

1225 Carbon Adsorption Testing The effectiveness of activated carbon for the removal

of organic compounds in the groundwater at the site was evaluated The carbon used was

the powdered activated 325 mesh carbon suppUed by Calgon Corporation The groundwater

samples used for this investigation were obtained and filtered as described in the air stripping

15 c

c

c

TABLE 1-6 AERATION TEST OPERATIONS

Air to Water Ratio Volume Volume of by Volume of Water Air Reqd Min of Aeration

251 1000 ml 25000 ml 111 501 1000 ml 50000 ml 222 751 1000 ml 75000 ml 333

section of this report to minimize the loss of volatUes A total of twelve samples were mn

during this investigation The necessity of air stripping was investigated by comparing the

resuUs from four samples that were air stripped to seven samples that were treated identicaUy

with the exception of air stripping AU samples for the air stripping comparison went

through the precipitation filtration and carbon adsorption processes AdditionaUy one

sample was prepared with no carbon added to serve as an untreated sample The samples are

summarized in Table 1-7 Each groundwater sample was prepared and mixed with a

predetermined dose of Calgon powdered 325 mesh activated carbon and placed m an open

Erlenmyer flask on a shaker table for a two-hour time period at 180 rpm A rotary shaker

table capable of accommodating twelve (12)-1000 ml Erlenmyer flasks was used Effluent

was fUtered with a barrel filter using a glass-fiber pre-fUter and a Whatman 45 micron

membrane The effluent clear and odorless in aU cases was added to sample containers

preserved and packed for shipment to CLP laboratories Since the shaker table could

accommodate 12 flasks a total of approximately 4 gaUons of effluent was generated during

each mn Several mns were performed to generate adequate quantities of sample for

analysis accordmg to Table 1-7 Groundwater was simUarly prepared for submittal to

Aquatec Lab in Burlington Vermont for chronic toxicity testing Three (3) shipments of

approximately 2 gaUons each were made

r 16

C) o o TABLE 1-7 CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation Filtration Aeration amp Carbon

AC-1 05 V SV MET 3400 3 1067 054 AC-2 20 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 22 AC-3 50 V SV MET 3400 3 1133 57 AC-4 100 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 110 AC-5 Trip Blank 0 V

Precipitation Filtration amp Carbon

C-0 0 V 500 1 500 0

C-1 05 V SV MET 3200 3 1067 053

c-2 10 V PCB 2200 2 1100 11

C-3 20 V SV CT 29000 24 1250 25

C-4 50 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 55

C-17 70 V MET 1200 1 1200 70

C-18 100 V SV 2200 2 1100 110

C-13 Treatability Blank 0 V PCB 2200 0 0 0

C-20 Trip Blank 0 V 0

C-10 Duplicate of C-1 05 SV 2000 2 1000 05

C-1 05 (MSMSD) 500 1 500 025

C-11 Duplicate of C-1 05 MET 1000 1 1000 05

C-20 Duplicate of C-2 10 V PCB (MSMSD)

4400 4 1100 11

C-16 Duplicate of C-4 50 PCB 2000 2 1000 50

C-6 0 PCB 2000 2 1000 0

17

o o n TABLE 1-7 (Continued) CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation amp Filtration

PPF-1 V SV MET PCB 2000 2 1000 0

Sludge

Sludge-1 0 MET PCB 0

V = VolatUe organics SV = Semivolatile organics MET = Metals PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls CT = Chronic toxicity MSMSD = Matrix spikematrix spike dup D = DupUcate TB = Trip blank PPF = Precipitated and pressure filtered

(to minimize volatUes loss as opposed to vacuum filtration)

18

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

c

TABLE OF CONTENTS

10 GROUNDWATER

11 Interim Study111 Introduction and Objectives112 Description of Work113 Results114 Conclusions

12 Full Scale Study121 Objectives122 Description of Work

1221 Groundwater Sample CoUection1222 Precipitation Testing1223 Filtration Testing1224 Air Stripping Testing1225 Carbon Absorption Testing

123 Results1231 Precipitation Testing1232 Filtration Testing1233 Air Strippmg Testing1234 Carbon Adsorption Testing

124 Conclusions

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

22 Description of Work

23 Resuhs

24 Conclusions

Page

1 1 1 2 6

6 7 7

10 12

14 15

15 19

19 22

24 24

28

37

37

39

41

c

c LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

I-l Treatability Study Sampling and Analysis Schematic 8

1-2 Groundwater and Trench and Cap Rock Sampling Locations 11

1-3 Proposed Groundwater Treatment System Schematic 30

c

c u

r LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1-1 Summary of PCB Results for Phase I Treatability Study Samples 3

1-2 Comparison of Organic Contamination in Groundwater to Effluent Discharge Levels - Temporary Discharge to the Neponset River 4

1-3 Comparison of Metal Contamination in Groundwater to Effluent Discharge Levels - Temporary Discharge to the Neponset River 5

1-4 Treatability Study Sampling and Analysis Summary 9

1-5 Groundwater SampUng Summary 12

1-6 Aeration Test Operations 16 r 1-7 CLP Treatability Study Sampling Summary 17

1-8 Preliminary Polymer Testing Results 20

1-9 FuU-Scale TreatabUity Study Jar Test Results 21

1-10 Metal Hydroxide Sludge Resuhs 23

1-11 FUtration Study Results 24

1-12 FuU-Scale TreatabUity Study Air Stripping Results for WeU MW-IA 25

1-13 FuU-Scale Treatability Study Air Stripping Results for

WeU ME-8 26

1-14 FuU-Scale Treatability Study Carbon Adsorption ResuUs 27

1-15 FuU-Scale Treatability Study Aeration and Carbon Adsorption Results 29 c m

1-16 Comparison of Inorganic FuU-Scale Treatability Study ResuUs to MCLs and Discharge Levels - Discharge to c the Neponset River 31

1-17 Comparison of Inorganic FuU-Scale Treatability Study ResuUs to MCLs and Discharge Levels shyDischarge to Meadow Brook 32

1-18 Comparison of Organic FuU-Scale Treatability Study ResuUs to MCLs and Discharge Levels shyDischarge to the Neponset River 33

1-19 Comparison of Organic FuU-Scale Treatability Study Results to MCLs and Discharge Levels shyDischarge to Meadow Brook 34

2-1 Trench Rock Washing Results 40

2-2 Interim Remedial Cap Rock Analytical Results 42

( w

IV c

Section One

10 GROUNDWATER

11 INTERIM STUDY

111 Introduction and Objectives

Performance of the pumping test phase of the hydrogeologic investigation at the Norwood

PCB site resulted in the accumulation of approximately 25000 gaUons of contaminated

groundwater In order to properly dispose of this contaminated groundwater a Phase I bench

scale treatabUity study was undertaken The objective of the treatabiUty study was to

determine whether two unit operations filtration and carbon adsorption would be effective

in treating the contaminated groundwater so that it could be discharged to the Neponset River

under a temporary permit without any adverse effects to human health or the environment

112 Description of Work

c On August 28 1991 a sample of groundwater was coUected from the Norwood PCB site for

use in the Phase I bench-scale treatability study The sample was coUected from WeU

MW-IA one of the most contaminated weUs at the Norwood PCB site The Phase I

groundwater treatability study was conducted and sample analysis performed during

September 1991 at Hydrosample Laboratory in Northboro Massachusetts

The groundwater sampling and the generation of the treatability samples was conducted in

accordance with the Interim Pre-Design Work Plan No 3 Phase I for the temporary

groundwater treatment plant Three different pore size or particle retention grades of fUter

paper were evaluated for filtration rate and PCB removal The coarse Whatman filter had a

pore size of 10 microns the medium had a pore size of 5 microns and the fine had a pore

size of 1 micron These sizes were chosen because they are the smaUest commerciaUy

avaUable sizes The filtration unit operation was evaluated both as the only treatment

technique and as the initial operation in a filtration carbon adsorption treatment scheme

1 c

c

c

For an evaluation of the carbon adsorption unit operation samples of the three fUtrates were

percolated through a 1 glass column charged with Calgon brand activated carbon Calgons

powdered activated 325 mesh carbon was recommended by Calgon for use in the bench-

scale studies because it decreases the contact time required for adsorption and can be filtered

out of the groundwater with a 045 micron pore size filter Each fUtrate was subjected to the

same carbon treatment The flow rate through the carbon column was adjusted to simulate

the fuU scale onsite carbon adsorption flow rate

113 Results

The results of the Phase I treatability study showed that PCBs the contaminants of greatest

concem were not removed by the filtration unit operation when it was employed as the only

treatment technique This indicates that the PCBs were dissolved or adhered to suspended

material finer than the smaUest commerciaUy avaUable filter pore size and that filtration

alone carmot remove PCBs to the cleanup level Activated carbon is necessary to achieve

PCB cleanup levels

The PCB results from the filtered carbon adsorbed samples indicated that the carbon

removed aU of the PCBs to a concentration of less than 05 xgL The analytical data was

vaUdated using the Data QuaUty Objective (DQO) Level HI criteria outlined in the

Groundwater Bench-Scale Phase I treatability Study QuaUty Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)

All of the analytical data was determined to be vaUd The PCB analytical resuUs are

presented in Table 1-1

One sample of the treated groundwater discharge from the interim treatment operation was

coUected on November 25 1991 The sample was analyzed and found to contain less than

050 jugL PCBs This sample was also analyzed for the twenty three Target Analyte List

(TAL) metals All of the metals concentrations were below the discharge limits calculated

based on AWQC and the flow rate of the discharge and the Neponset River See Tables 1-2

c

c

c

TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF PCB RESULTS FOR PHASE I TREATABILITY SAMPLES

Aroclor 1254 Surrogate Recoveries Concentration xgL TCMX DBC

Initial Sample 48 J 26 93 (Settled Decanted)

Coarse FUtered 63 J 57 102

Coarse FUtered DupUcate 79 140 105

Medium FUtered 59 61 108

Fine FUtered 52 78 97

Coarse FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 75 105

Medium FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 72 92

Fine FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 101

Method Blank 050 UJ 58

Pump Equipment Blank 050 UJ 36 110

TCMX = 2 4 5 6 tetrachlorometaxylene CLP 390 SOW Advisory Recovery Range 60 shy150

DBC = Dibutylchlorendate CLP 288 SOW Advisory Recovery Range 24-154

A non-PCB positive interfering compound coeluted with the DBC surrogate in the method blank therefore the surrogate recovery could not be quantitated

Aroclors 1221 1232 1242 1248 and 1260 were nondetected (050 U) in aU samples

Coarse FUter 10 micron pore size Medium FUter 5 micron pore size Fine FUter 1 micron pore size

c

o C) o TABLE 1-2 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER WITH EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

bull v - o x - - - - - - - - bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - - bull bull bull

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull gt bull bull bull bull gt bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull o gt pMWmmmXiiizz-mm^ 4SoSiSSiyS iSs DAILY - AVQ ^bull sectMMMsectMM mM i^i^^^^

W^MM^0 i ^^ ^ i ^ ^ ) ) ^ ^ ^ ^

liffiSaiArtiMifiig wampsectii^i9MMzWMM^lt

i 0 t M B W ^ SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE

-yio|ijMi i|5|laquoiilifc^ li^Oimim

PHASEn PHASE I PHASE

SURFACE BEDROCK BEDROCK

SjiA3tliilAM|li-^ isiowfciili^rBo^

(van) (uan) (uou

PHASEE

BEDROCK

fuow

iiHiisii BEDROCK

iiiiiiiiiixiii ixc ilfeiiili f-iO(3Msect

Wyt(Bm m^mmM miimmiM camamm WmM-M

|ii|iiiU-S |JipSEsiit||l ^ ^

Mi(iiteiii iciiiiitiii f-Wi^WM

ilii^y^iii illi^i^liliiiSl-liN lGipilaquooiraquoi|i|ii| ^^^ljMm$m-

MAXIMUM

EFFLUENT

DISCHARGE

bull^ bull bull L E V E L bullbullbull

(U6L) (8gt(gt)

MONTHLY

EFFLUENT

DISCHAROE

bull iLEVEL bullbull

(tlOLi (8)(9)

bull||yensi|| W0fW^iz

DISCHAROE

sectBlWW$W ( U a U (8)(9)

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull

iiil iW^

VOLATILE OROANICS

111-TricUoiocthuie 3 3 - - NC NC 170000 NC NC 68850000

M^iM^l ia i t i^^ W MMf ^ ^ i ^ M

Vinyl Chloride

mMWMimMilBMMM iil|||i||i||i|||||

14 14 73

SSi5i5

W S X i i m S M 120 23 6S 110

bull -

bull bull T

no

Wfimmim ISiMBB

NC

llliNGSM iiiipltiiii

NC

bulliiSfi4i|ii-

li PIiAlio|jifshy-3250

mimpmamp wwrnmim-NC

ampampllz-^f^C

Wwyen WM NC

170100

bull bull bull bull shy bull ^ raquo - S 5 lt gt

2126250

12-Dieliloroethene (toUl) 77 300 199 560 44 68 43 no 11600 (13) NC 1400000 (4) 4698000 NC 567000000

|||iiSi^i||laquo|||ii^^^^^^^^

Xylenei (total)

kz^z23i(iwMitiMM^^ W0$0Tisectsectg^^

6 6 shy

|isii7Pois

WlampMlMampW0 - shy shy shy

i-wip

-

z4smmm lmm0(M

NC

sSiiiraquolii(i)l iilltlaquoili

NC

i--iii ii -^lli||Piiiii

NC

ioisiaiiiSipop lsectfiMm

NC

i-Mti969M)

i - zF ^M SC

372ib0

$$laquo43

NC

bullWz-i

SEMIVOLATILES

23S-Trichioioi)beaol 10 10 - - NC NC NC NC NC NC

j|NiiwUfl|ropw^^

13-Dictiloiobeiizeiie

sectMimiMmm^ i|il||||iii|i||i

4 4 shy

i-siJ(t| ii|i WSMWiMMMiWMMM^

-

WMsect M WBWWrshy-

MiMxim- $MM^Mz

NO

m-z^mmi m^msmm NC

IM---iiiMMM WzMW Sk

2600

|Siii laquowq zz^Wlt^^

NC

bullMz-zziMii WzlMM

NC

kiMAz-iMampi WmtW^

1053000

14-Dichlorobenzeiie 14 14 48 67 shy shy shy - NC NC 2600 NC NC 1053000

| i i | l i t j | i i | i | ^

ii|ii|llllilill^ bullimMmMMiiMWMM ghif^m^MmMmiM^

iSmMMyMMsectsectMfziM^ i||||i|i |i|j|||^

bulliMMiiM ^zZ^ZzZZZZ^

^ --zllMMmd |sii|i|ii|

- ISSiiii lls-^iiil

i^iMM^i-iM wiiiW^Sz

iliiO-ii i l- iif-iiiii

WM--z ampiM fampMM

f bull iSilwiobtti

|i|3jl|i|

P C B I

Aioclor-1254 34 180 26 89 64 8 24 27 20 fT) 0014 CT) 00045 810 57 18 AF

secti^^MMMampMM^^ Aroclor-1254 (paper-filtered)

Arociot-124S

BM iM-mi-MmsectMMMiz iiili|iiililiiiliiliiiii

- - l i

liJii -rilSiiiiiil

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii l-l il shy shy -

ilJi|i i-sectsectMBsect i

-

j 0 lt7) iOjCT)

20 (7)

Oi014 (7)

001 (7)

0014 CD

immmmB WMi^MampMi

00IM5

MM--zMshyi bulll l i l i |iloi

^

-bull-iigtM

WsectM0-amp 57

nzzmmm mlBWM

18

V

Aroclof-1248 (ghit-filteRd) 4 4 shy shy shy - 20 (7) 0014 CT) 00045 810 57 18 F

Phaie I RI umpling conducted in May 1988 Phaae II RI lampling conducted in April 1989

NC bull No criteria cxitta for thia compound

(1) Inaufficient Data to Develop Criteria Value preaented ia LOEL shy Loweit Obierved Effect Level

(2) Value preaented for carelnogeiia ia the 10-5 level

(3) Value preaented ia for dichloroethenea

(4) Value preieoted ia for trana 12-dichloroetliene

(5) pH dependent criteria (78 pH uted)

(6) Value preaented ia for chlorinated benzenea

(7) Value presented ia for total PCBa

(8) Effluent DiKhaige Limit based upon an effluent discharge of 5 gpm to the Neponset River during the 7-day low flow lOyr recurrence (2O20gpm)

USGS Pleasant Street Oauging Station on the Neponset River

(9) Dilution factor =[(5gpm+2020gpm)5gpml= 405

(lO)Concentration exceeds effluent discharge limit contaminant must be removed by Groundwater Treatment Plant before discharge to surface water [D=DAILY MAX A=AVG MONTHLY F=FISH]

-

-

-

- - -

-

-

-

-

-

o n o TABLE 1-3 COMPARISON OF METAL CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER WFTH EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull bull bull bull gt gt bull gt bull bull bull bull bull - bull bulliii|vO|| iS iggJMLnei i iaD s-UNFILTEREDgssHis M-B33nsRmmMMM D A I L Y iiiiiiiiiiiiiAVGiiiiii |i mmmmMmmm Xy lira^li P H A S E I WtiiMM liwiAiiiii iiiiimiii iii-pHiwiiliiiii WampMM P H A S E I ilii iiwgiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiili|i| iiii iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii M A X I M U M iiiiipifriiii^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiiifiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

555^gt5^5V555^^^^ i i i ilaquoiij S U R F A C E m m m Wtm^itM B E D R O C K bull bull gt f t bullbullbull B E D R O C K iiiFRiiliiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiijsiiiiiriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii|iiiiiiliiiiiiii E F F L U E N T E F F L U E N T E F F L U E N T iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii wmmm |||ii||li| |i IliAiiiiil WliampiMM liiiiltiilii^isiiii liiiiifctAXliii iiiAiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^i^iibhreiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii liiiiiii iiHiiiiiiiiiiiiii- D I S C H A R O E D I S C H A R O E D I S C H A R O E iiiii imm^mi mmmn WmMm WBrnB

PARAlt4ETER W iMmm iiiiiiiii iiitjiiiii Wi^MMM iiii iiiiiiiiilii iiiaraquoliiii W-imMMi iiiiiiaiiiii mMmmmm iCSiiMAiiiiii O O N S U M P iiiiiiiVEitiiii liiiiisyifeEiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiitiiiiL iiii cii^i iiiiiifl|5iili iiiiiiili (UOW iiiiiiii (oon) iiiiult3piili (UOL) lzMcii0m (UGL) iipiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|^(Siliiiiiiiiii|iiiiii (UOL) (2) (UOL) (6)C7) (IKJL) (6)C7) (UOn) (6) C7) i^iipi

M E T A L S

A h m i n u m 154000 390000 119 352 12500 43900 74 77 NA NA NA NC NC NC

i^poundi1i liiiiiii^iii iiiiiiiPi iii|ilsi iliiiJsiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iii-iili liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii-raquoiiiilti)ij^i JiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiW)i(5i iiiiiiiiiiiiii6Pigtiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiS5iraquoii)i iiiiiitiraquo50 iiiiii3f laquoltraquollishyJ^Sn^iii-illii iiiillifil II |-Iilliiii WlampMi liiliii-ii iiiiiiiifiiiiiili 22a iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii^iiiliiiiiii iiiiiiiiN iiiiiiliiiiiiiii iii-iiiiiiiiiii ifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii fiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiii i iiiiii i j ^ i iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiip iiiiiiiii Bar ium 690 1640 67 2laquo9 53 147 97 19 NC NC NC (5) NC NC NC Beryll ium 18 32 130 (1) 53 (1) 131 52650 2147 531

|^i^ii|litx i s bull liillliSi ZZZZZZZZZ i|||i-^i - iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiii --i|yiiiWi iiiifslt^laquoiiiiiii3jiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiltfcjii i(3yiiiliii iiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiJC iiii-S iifiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMi iiiiiiilii154- bull i i - i i6laquo856i mzMkm iiiiiiiliiii ii|iijji||ii|||i 9lMMi MmiMi zZ^ mm iiiiiiiifi li^iiiiiiiiiraquoliiii 33100 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilMi^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiieiiiii^iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Pi iiiiiiiiiiiiNti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij^i

Chromium 206 526 1 8 18 34 104 16 W 11 (4) 3200 (4) 648b 4455 1296000 -Cobal t 113 295 19 22 36 40 NC NC NC NC NC NC

fMgtimi-^ztm zmisectmi iMiMM wmmi M^iiiiampii iiJiiM 189 iiiiiiiiiisiiiiiilaquo3iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifii iiiiiiiiiiiliiiii^-iiiii isiiiiiiiiiiisiiiii CJiiiiiijiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiStCiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM bullsiiiii iiiiiiili5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiigtireii iiiiiiii-shy bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull iiiiiiliiiiiiWiii bull bull laquo raquo - iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiilifii iiiiiiiiiiii iii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii l i i i i i i i i i i^ i l l l i s i i iiiiii i-iiiiiiiSiiiiiiisiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|fltii- 405000 iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiwii iiiiAiiishymBmmm imampmm WmMM Wimm iiiiillili iiiiiiiiliiiiiii

Lead 43 i t3 21 168 l i 37 30 168 14 (3) 054 p) NC 5670 219 NC

Magnes ium 42400 148000 3950 8990 8630 21100 5040 11200 NC NC NC NC NC NC

iiititlj^iusibiii^j iilllJii^ -M-W^M iiiiiiii^^i^ ii-|7laquo- L5W iiiiiiiiiiiiiilliiifii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiltiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii ii5iiiiiiie iiiiiiiiiiii bullbull bull l t raquo iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNC iiiiiiii isci i i i | | i i i | | i p i i II0M^I iiiiiliiiiiiiiilii WM^MmM ilillilflil i | | | l il |o| | l i i l i P liiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiip8iii bullbull ( U si i l i l i iiiiii- iiii-li|i5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiipiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiii -i- o-iil bull iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiii laquoiii

Nicke l 164 452 64 104 643 (3) 33 (3) 3800 260415 13365 1539000 -Potaaaium 13100 33400 2800 5420 4580 9790 3280 5780 NC NC NC NC NC NC

i|i3laquo|i |s||i ilsectiampim illii|li MmMm iiliil|^i7ii il-lii^|iiraquoiii- (iiltii iliiiiiii^iiiiili^^^ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiii2iwiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiliis lt 6800 ii5iiiiiiiyilaquoJpll i iiiiiiiiiifiiil ^iiilOWi iiiiiii3^lHWraquoi iiiiii--i

|i|||ii Iliii illl|iillSI |illliSl^| illillaquoii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiliiltiii laquo raquo iiiiiiiiiiiii||i||| iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii|i|ltoigttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiliiiiilii iiiiiiiiiiiii bull^bull i l iNc| i-|iiiii -i-iii ii gti5 i iiiiiiiili^^ iiiiiiiiiiii Oiiiiiiii|i bulliiiiiiii Sodium 14100 28900 12500 26raquo00 16320 33200 16300 68000 N c NC NC Nc NC Nc Thal l ium 10 10 58 10 1400 (1) 40 (1) 32 567000 16200 1296

igtPiiiilli MmmmiM liilililil iiliiiiisii iii|ii| bulliiii iiiiiisiiilii iiiiiiiiiiiii|i ii^|i iiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii iiiiiiii ii^iliiiiiiiNiilliiiiiiiji- bulli|iiiiiflaquoSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii|lNe-|i-ii iiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Nc iiiiiii liiNCii iiiiiii iiiiiiiilifiei iiiii iiiiiii iilaquo|||il| mmmmi m m m i M iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisil i iiiisiiiiilllii iiiiliiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiitii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiii iiiiiiliili-|s4ii iiilliiiiiiii ssiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii^^iii-iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii 13365 iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiip^ P b a i e I RI sampling conducted in M a y 1988 Phase II RI samplmg conducted in Apri l 1989

N C = N o cri teria exiata for th is compotmd

N A = N o t Available

(1) Insufficient Data to Develop Cri ter ia Value presented is L O E L - Lowest Observed Effect Level

(2) Value preaented for careinogena ia the 10-S level

(3) Hardness dependent c r i te r ia (25 mgA C A C 0 3 uaed)

(4) Value presented is for Ihe m o r e toxic hexavalent form

(5) Value presented is proposed (more conservat ive)

(6) Effluent Discharge L imi t dilution factor based upon an effluent discbarge of 5 gpm to the Neponse t River during the 7 - d a y low flow lOyr recurrence (2020gpm)

USOS Pleasant Street Oaug ing atation on the Neponset River

(7) Dilut ion factor =[(Sgpm+2020gpm)Sgpm]= 405

(lO)Concentration exceeds effluent discharge limit contaminant must be removed by Groundwate r Treatment Plant before discharge to Ihe Neponset River [ D = D A I L Y M A X A = A V O M O N T H L Y F=FISH]

c and 1-3 for effluent (Uscharge limits for organic and inorganic compounds An acute toxicity

test showed that no toxic effect was observed for the interim treatment discharge

114 Conclusions

Based on the results of the Phase I bench scale treatabUity study the combined unit

operations of fUtration foUowed by carbon adsorption were effective in treating the

contaminated groundwater coUected during the pumping tests for temporary discharge to the

Neponset River A sample of the discharge was coUected during the groundwater treatment

and it was found to contain less than the quantitation limit of 05 xgL of PCB The metals

concentrations were aU determined to be below the discharge criteria A sample was also

coUected and submitted for an acute toxicity determination The resuUs showed that no toxic

effect was observed The bench scale treatability results and the on-line discharge analyses

demonstrate that the filtration and carbon adsorption unit operations were effective temporary

treatment techniques

^ 12 FULL SCALE STUDY

A groundwater treatability study was conducted to evaluate the performance of four different

treatment processes on contaminated groundwater obtained from the Norwood PCB site The

contaminants present in the groundwater were determined during previous studies conducted

in May 1988 and AprU 1989 by EBASCO Chapter 1 of the Final FeasibUity Study

(EBASCO 1989c) contains an overview of the results obtained during these investigations

Based on the resuUs of the May 1988 and AprU 1989 field investigations EPA concluded

that the overburden and bedrock aquifers beneath the site were contaminated with

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and volatUe and semivolatile organic compounds (VOCs

and SVOCs) It was determined that surficial and subsurface soUs dredge pUes of sediments

taken from Meadow Brook sediments in Meadow Brook and sediments in the drainage

system of the buUding operated by Grant Gear were the sources of the contamination In

r

c September 1989 EPA released the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Norwood PCB site In

the ROD EPA directed that groundwater be treated with a system including activated carbon

air stripping with vapor controls and precipitationfiltration iEPA also directed that

treatability studies or pUot studies be conducted to aid in the overaU design of the system

In accordance with the ROD a bench scale treatabUity study was conducted at the ENSECO

Laboratory Facility in Cambridge Massachusetts by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel between

January 14 and February 16 1992 This report presents a description of the work

completed resuUs and conclusions of the study

121 Objectives

The fuU-scale groundwater treatability study was conducted to determine if treatment

consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping and carbon adsorption would effectively

remove the contamination present in the groundwater at the Norwood PCB site to appUcable

standards Information on the percent reduction of organic and inorganic compounds in the

groundwater volume type of residual and byproducts produced by each component were

also investigated A schematic detailing the treatability study and the sampling and analysis

conducted is presented in Figure 1-1

122 Description of Work

The treatability study was performed in accordance with Pre-Design Work Plan 3 and the

QuaUty Assurance Project Plan for the Phase n Bench-Scale TreatabiUty Study (Work

Plan 3)

Groundwater samples were coUected from the Norwood PCB site for use in this

investigation Interim sampling was performed on effluent streams generated from each

bench-scale process for analysis according to Table 1-4 Influent and final effluent samples

generated during the groundwater treatabiUty were coUected and analyzed through the CLP

^

o JAR TESTING SAMPLE ID

o

POLYMER TESTING

RAW GROUNDWATER

VOL 1 SVOL I p PCB f ^ ^ METALS

mdash SST

T

T

T

SS - Choose Polymer T ar)d Dose Estimate pH pf i After Coagu lant

Jar Test 1 PH10 bull

Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

Ume wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

Jar Test 2 pH9

Jar Test 3 pH8

bull

Lime w C oag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

JT1 -1 shy

j r i -2 shy

JT1 -3 shy

JTI-4

j r 2 - 1

JT2-2 shy

JT2-3

j r2-4 bull

JT3-1 shy

JT3-2shy

JT3-3 bull

JT3-4 shy

HLTRATION TESTING

RIter Paper 1 - SS T Time mdash |

RIter Paper 2 - SS T Time-

Rlter Paper 3 - SS T Time -

CtHXise Filter Paper or Particle Retention Size

Sample Well Using Bailer

VOL SVOL PCB CLPMETALS (PPF-1)

Precipitate and Filter Using Optimized Polymer pH Coagulant and Filter

lt

AIR STRIPPING

AJrWater Ratio 1

AirWater Ratio 2

AirWater Ratio3 ~

VOLmdash1

-VOL

-VOLmdash

SAMPLE ID CARBON ADSORPTION (All by CLP)

Carbon mdashVOL SVOL Metals AC-1

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-2

Dose 3 mdash ^ deg shy reg ^ deg ^^reg ^ ^

Carbon

Dose1

Carbon Dose 2

Cartwn

Dose 4

Cartxjn Dose 1

Carbon Dose2~

Carbon Dose 3

Carbon Dose4~

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-4

-VOL C-1

-VOL SVOL Metals C-2

-VOL PCB C-3

bull VOL SVOL Chronic Toxicity C-4

Jar Test 4 pH 10 Dup

bull

- Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

Jr4-1

JT4-2

JT4-3

Carbon Doses

Cartxgtn Dose 6

-VOL SVOL PCB

mdash VOL Metals

C-5

C-6

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals JT4-4

VOL = Volatile Organics SVOL = Semi Volatile Organics

Carbon Dose 7

mdashVOL SVOL C-7

SS = Suspended Solids

NaOH-MNAL JT5-1 T = Turbidity

Jar Test 5 pHIO

NaOH - wPolymer - MN AL

NaOH wPoly wCoag RItered - MN AL

JT5-2

JT5-3

NaOH wPdy wCoag Aerated andRItered - MN AL

JT5-4

^ NaOH wPdy wCoag PermanganateRItered - MN M

JT5-5

J O Special FIGURE 1-1 TREATABILITY STUDY

Optimize pH Decide Ume or NaOH

SAMPUNG AND ANALYSIS SCHEMATIC

Compare Polymer vs Coagulant

(J DF222658HW

c

c

TABLE 1-4 TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Number Bench Scale Process

Groundwater Treatability Study

Initial Groundwater

Preliminary Polymer Testing

Precipitation Supemant

FUtration Effluent

Metals Sludge Precipitated and FUtered Effluent with Groundwater CoUected with BaUer

Air Stripping Effluent

Air Stripped Carbon Adsorption Effluent

Non Air Stripped Carbon Effluent

Sludge Sample

Rock Washing Study

Initial Rocks Initial Gravel from roof Stone from Cap Washed Rocks Washed Stones

Samples

1

1 1

16 16 16

3 3

1 2 2 2

3

4 4 2 2

7 4 2 2 1 1

3 5 6 3 1

Analysis

VolatUes SemivolatUes PCB Metals Suspended SoUds pH Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity Metals VolatUe Organics

Suspended SoUds TuAidity

PCB VolatUe Organics PCB SemivolatUe Organics

VolatUe Organics

SemivolatUe Organics VolatUe Organics Metals PCB

VolatUe Organics SemivolatUe Organics Metals PCB Chronic Toxicity PCBs Metals

PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB

Laboratory

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

c

c

c

system for volatUes semivolatUes PCBs and metals AU interim samples were analyzed at

ENSECO in Cambridge Massachusetts AU data was vaUdated by MampE according to the

QAPP

1221 Groundwater Sample CoUection Groundwater for this study was coUected from

weUs MW-IA and ME-8 as shown on Figure 1-2 iMW-lA was chosen as a sampling

location because it was determined to be one of the most contaminated weUs on-site based

on previous investigations During the course of the treatabiUty study a decision was made

to obtain samples from ME-8 because results of the most recent sampling effort conducted by

ICF indicated that groundwater from this weU contained approximately 200 xgL vinyl

chloride whereas groundwater from MW-IA no longer contained any quantifiable amount

Removal of vinyl chloride by aeration needed to be demonstrated during this investigation

because vinyl chloride is not effectively removed by carbon adsorption

Groundwater samples were obtained on four separate occasions during the study as shown in

Table 1-5 On each occasion the groundwater was coUected in accordance with the Field

Sampling Plan Three weU volumes of water were purged from the weU using a centrifiigal

pump before any samples were coUected The pH temperature and conductivity of the

purge water was measured after each weU volume untU the measured values differed by less

than 10 for three consecutive samples to ensure the sample drawn was representative of the

water in the aquifer Samples for the metals precipitation and filtration study were coUected

using a centrifugal pump Samples for the air stripping and carbon adsorption study were

coUected with a teflon baUer to minimize aeration and possible loss of volatUes during

sample coUection

The samples were coUected in one gallon amber glass bottles and stored at 4degC Each

sample bottle wasfiUed to exclude a headspace in the bottle

e 10

200 200

SCALE IN FEET

D CAP ROCK SAMPLE LOCATION

bull WELLS

nOURE 1-2 GROUNDWATER AND TRENCH AND CAP

ROCK SAMPLING LOCATIONS

11

E T C A L F a EDDY

c TABLE 1-5 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING SUMMARY

Mode of Date WeU Amount Sampled pH Temp degC Conductivity SampUng

11392 MW-IA 10 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm pump

12792 MW-IA 16 gaUons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20392 MW-IA 16 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20592 ME-8 2 gallons 64 8deg 230 umhocm baUer

1222 Precipitation Testing

General Chemical precipitation for the removal of metals was evaluated at three pH values

and three polymer dosages to determine the effectiveness of the treatment A preliminary

evaluation of different coagulants and polymers was conducted at three pH values by

r Metcalf amp Eddy personnel and a leading polymer vendor to determine which chemicals could

potentiaUy be used to precipitate groundwater Based on the results from the preliminary

evaluation jar tests were conducted by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel to aid in the determination

of the chemical dosages required to optimize the effectiveness of precipitation

Polymer and Coagulent Testing Polymer testing was performed by Metcalf amp Eddy and a

leading polymer vendor at the ENSECO laboratory faciUty in Cambridge Massachusetts

The effectiveness of anionic cationic and nonioiuc polymer was evaluated at three pH

values The best polymer was determined to be Drewfloc 2270 a low charge anionic high

molecular weight polymer This polymer was used in jar tests 1 through 5 The best

coagulent was determined to be Charge Pack 12 (CP-12) a higher charge cationic low

molecular weight coagulent The CP-12 coagulent was used in jar tests 1 through 5

described under jar testing

12 c

InitiaUy the effects of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was investigated Tests c were conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 with sodium hydroxide which had the best

settling characteristics based on visual observation and turbidity measurement Each polymer

was then tested at pH = 100 to evaluate Us effectiveness under optimum pH conditions

A formula of polymer and coagulant addition was developed based on visual observations

suspended soUds and turbidity analyses performed on each sample generated during the

investigation The anionic polymer effectively flocculated the existing smaU suspended

particles and the addkion of cationic coagulant removed iron and color when the pH was

raised to 100

Jar Testing Five jar tests were performed using the polymer and coagulants determined to

be effective during preliminary testing Jar tests 1 and 4 were conducted as dupUcates at

ph 10 Jar test 2 was conducted at pH 9 jar test 3 was conducted at pH 8 and jar test 5 was

conducted at pH 10 On each occasion prior to beginning the jar test the raw groundwater

was brought tol5deg-17degCina warm water bath The temperature was held constant to c eliminate the effects of temperature on reaction rates and solubUity

The foUowing is a description of activities conducted during the jar tests fti through 4 See

Figure 1-1 for details Four samples were evaluated during each jar test For each jar test

four 15 Uter beakers were fiUed with 1 Uter of raw groundwater The beakers were placed

on the stirrer platform and the paddles were lowered into the sample The jar stirrer was

operated at 80 revolutions per minute (rpm) The pH was then adjusted to the desired value

(pH = 10 9 8 10 for Tests 1 2 3 4) with a lime slurry in two samples and with a

sodium hydroxide solution (25) in the remaining two samples Lime was added to

investigate its effects on the precipitate and to evaluate its effectiveness in pH adjustment

The cationic coagulant was then added to each sample untU the concentration in solution was

30 mgL The solution was stirred at 80 rpm for 2 minutes to ensure complete mixing The

polymer was then added to one sample pH adjusted with sodium hydroxide and one sample

pH adjusted with lime Mixing continued for two minutes Next the solution was stirred

13 c

slowly orflocculated for five minutes at 20 rpm FinaUy the solutions were aUowed to

c settle for 10 minutes Visual observations were recorded and samples were submitted for

suspended soUds turbidity and metals analyses

Jar test 5 was performed to assess the removal of manganese and aluminum by preaeration

and permanganate additions (see Figure 1-1) Because no significant benefit was observed in

the previous tests when lime was used instead of sodium hydroxide sodium hydroxide was

used to adjust the pH in aU four samples to a pH of 100 in jar test 5 Only sodium

hydroxide was added to the groundwater in the first jar to determine the removal of

manganese and aluminum attributable to the formation of an insoluble salt at high pH

Sodium hydroxide and polymer were added to the second jar to evaluate the effectiveness of

the polymer Sodium hydroxide polymer and coagulant were added to sample 4 The

supemate from sample 4 was then fUtered This was performed to determine if the required

removal efficiencies could be achieved by chemical precipitation and filtration

Permanganate was added to sample 3 in addition to sodium hydroxide coagulant and

polymer to determine if the manganese and aluminum present could be chemicaUy oxidized c to a less soluble state which would enhance the efficiency of fUtration The supemate was

then siphoned off using clean tygon tubing and a syringe into the sample containers

Samples were submitted for metals suspended soUds and turbidity as illustrated on

Figure 1-1

1223 Filtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was perfonned to determine the

optimum pore size of filter media that could effectively remove the suspended soUds in the

precipitated groundwater The determination of the removal efficiency for each filter was

based on the concentration of suspended soUds and turbidity of the filtered water The time

required to filter the groundwater was also evaluated

Prior to filtration the metals in the groundwater were precipitated and coagulent and polymer

were added using the optimum conditions developed during the precipitation study The

optimum conditions consisted of pH adjustment to 10 with sodium hydroxide addition of

14 c

coagulent CP-12 to a concentration of one percent and addition of Drewfloc 2270 polymer to

c a concentration of 10 mgl Three grades (10 xm 5 xm and 1 xm pore sizes) of filter

paper were used with a Buchner ftmnel to filter aUquots of the precipitated groundwater

Samples of the filtered water were submitted to ENSECO for suspended soUds and turbidity

analysis

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge was coUected during the treatability study The

sludge sample was submitted to the CLP system for PCB and metals analysis so that a

characterization of the sludge could be made and disposal options could be evaluated

1224 Air Stripping Testing Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at three

different air to water ratios to determine the most effective stripping ratio To ensure that

worst case volatUe organic compound concentrations were present in the samples for this

study some modifications were made in how the sample was coUected and treated First

the groundwater was coUected with a baUer to prevent the loss of volatUes AdditionaUy the

water was fUtered under positive pressure foUowing the precipitation step to minimize the c loss of volatUes that would result if the water was filtered using a vacuum pump

An aquarium pump tygon tubing and aeration stone with a glass-fiber fUter cartridge was

used to aerate 1-Uter aUquots of precipitated and filtered groundwater The aeration flow

rate was caUbrated by filling a graduated cylinder with air that had been filled with tap water

and inverted in a water bath The air was diffused at 375 missec into 1-Uter aUquots of

groundwater and the time measured as iUustrated in Table 1-6 The aerated groundwater was

submitted to ENSECO for volatUe organics analysis

1225 Carbon Adsorption Testing The effectiveness of activated carbon for the removal

of organic compounds in the groundwater at the site was evaluated The carbon used was

the powdered activated 325 mesh carbon suppUed by Calgon Corporation The groundwater

samples used for this investigation were obtained and filtered as described in the air stripping

15 c

c

c

TABLE 1-6 AERATION TEST OPERATIONS

Air to Water Ratio Volume Volume of by Volume of Water Air Reqd Min of Aeration

251 1000 ml 25000 ml 111 501 1000 ml 50000 ml 222 751 1000 ml 75000 ml 333

section of this report to minimize the loss of volatUes A total of twelve samples were mn

during this investigation The necessity of air stripping was investigated by comparing the

resuUs from four samples that were air stripped to seven samples that were treated identicaUy

with the exception of air stripping AU samples for the air stripping comparison went

through the precipitation filtration and carbon adsorption processes AdditionaUy one

sample was prepared with no carbon added to serve as an untreated sample The samples are

summarized in Table 1-7 Each groundwater sample was prepared and mixed with a

predetermined dose of Calgon powdered 325 mesh activated carbon and placed m an open

Erlenmyer flask on a shaker table for a two-hour time period at 180 rpm A rotary shaker

table capable of accommodating twelve (12)-1000 ml Erlenmyer flasks was used Effluent

was fUtered with a barrel filter using a glass-fiber pre-fUter and a Whatman 45 micron

membrane The effluent clear and odorless in aU cases was added to sample containers

preserved and packed for shipment to CLP laboratories Since the shaker table could

accommodate 12 flasks a total of approximately 4 gaUons of effluent was generated during

each mn Several mns were performed to generate adequate quantities of sample for

analysis accordmg to Table 1-7 Groundwater was simUarly prepared for submittal to

Aquatec Lab in Burlington Vermont for chronic toxicity testing Three (3) shipments of

approximately 2 gaUons each were made

r 16

C) o o TABLE 1-7 CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation Filtration Aeration amp Carbon

AC-1 05 V SV MET 3400 3 1067 054 AC-2 20 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 22 AC-3 50 V SV MET 3400 3 1133 57 AC-4 100 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 110 AC-5 Trip Blank 0 V

Precipitation Filtration amp Carbon

C-0 0 V 500 1 500 0

C-1 05 V SV MET 3200 3 1067 053

c-2 10 V PCB 2200 2 1100 11

C-3 20 V SV CT 29000 24 1250 25

C-4 50 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 55

C-17 70 V MET 1200 1 1200 70

C-18 100 V SV 2200 2 1100 110

C-13 Treatability Blank 0 V PCB 2200 0 0 0

C-20 Trip Blank 0 V 0

C-10 Duplicate of C-1 05 SV 2000 2 1000 05

C-1 05 (MSMSD) 500 1 500 025

C-11 Duplicate of C-1 05 MET 1000 1 1000 05

C-20 Duplicate of C-2 10 V PCB (MSMSD)

4400 4 1100 11

C-16 Duplicate of C-4 50 PCB 2000 2 1000 50

C-6 0 PCB 2000 2 1000 0

17

o o n TABLE 1-7 (Continued) CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation amp Filtration

PPF-1 V SV MET PCB 2000 2 1000 0

Sludge

Sludge-1 0 MET PCB 0

V = VolatUe organics SV = Semivolatile organics MET = Metals PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls CT = Chronic toxicity MSMSD = Matrix spikematrix spike dup D = DupUcate TB = Trip blank PPF = Precipitated and pressure filtered

(to minimize volatUes loss as opposed to vacuum filtration)

18

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

c LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

I-l Treatability Study Sampling and Analysis Schematic 8

1-2 Groundwater and Trench and Cap Rock Sampling Locations 11

1-3 Proposed Groundwater Treatment System Schematic 30

c

c u

r LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1-1 Summary of PCB Results for Phase I Treatability Study Samples 3

1-2 Comparison of Organic Contamination in Groundwater to Effluent Discharge Levels - Temporary Discharge to the Neponset River 4

1-3 Comparison of Metal Contamination in Groundwater to Effluent Discharge Levels - Temporary Discharge to the Neponset River 5

1-4 Treatability Study Sampling and Analysis Summary 9

1-5 Groundwater SampUng Summary 12

1-6 Aeration Test Operations 16 r 1-7 CLP Treatability Study Sampling Summary 17

1-8 Preliminary Polymer Testing Results 20

1-9 FuU-Scale TreatabUity Study Jar Test Results 21

1-10 Metal Hydroxide Sludge Resuhs 23

1-11 FUtration Study Results 24

1-12 FuU-Scale TreatabUity Study Air Stripping Results for WeU MW-IA 25

1-13 FuU-Scale Treatability Study Air Stripping Results for

WeU ME-8 26

1-14 FuU-Scale Treatability Study Carbon Adsorption ResuUs 27

1-15 FuU-Scale Treatability Study Aeration and Carbon Adsorption Results 29 c m

1-16 Comparison of Inorganic FuU-Scale Treatability Study ResuUs to MCLs and Discharge Levels - Discharge to c the Neponset River 31

1-17 Comparison of Inorganic FuU-Scale Treatability Study ResuUs to MCLs and Discharge Levels shyDischarge to Meadow Brook 32

1-18 Comparison of Organic FuU-Scale Treatability Study ResuUs to MCLs and Discharge Levels shyDischarge to the Neponset River 33

1-19 Comparison of Organic FuU-Scale Treatability Study Results to MCLs and Discharge Levels shyDischarge to Meadow Brook 34

2-1 Trench Rock Washing Results 40

2-2 Interim Remedial Cap Rock Analytical Results 42

( w

IV c

Section One

10 GROUNDWATER

11 INTERIM STUDY

111 Introduction and Objectives

Performance of the pumping test phase of the hydrogeologic investigation at the Norwood

PCB site resulted in the accumulation of approximately 25000 gaUons of contaminated

groundwater In order to properly dispose of this contaminated groundwater a Phase I bench

scale treatabUity study was undertaken The objective of the treatabiUty study was to

determine whether two unit operations filtration and carbon adsorption would be effective

in treating the contaminated groundwater so that it could be discharged to the Neponset River

under a temporary permit without any adverse effects to human health or the environment

112 Description of Work

c On August 28 1991 a sample of groundwater was coUected from the Norwood PCB site for

use in the Phase I bench-scale treatability study The sample was coUected from WeU

MW-IA one of the most contaminated weUs at the Norwood PCB site The Phase I

groundwater treatability study was conducted and sample analysis performed during

September 1991 at Hydrosample Laboratory in Northboro Massachusetts

The groundwater sampling and the generation of the treatability samples was conducted in

accordance with the Interim Pre-Design Work Plan No 3 Phase I for the temporary

groundwater treatment plant Three different pore size or particle retention grades of fUter

paper were evaluated for filtration rate and PCB removal The coarse Whatman filter had a

pore size of 10 microns the medium had a pore size of 5 microns and the fine had a pore

size of 1 micron These sizes were chosen because they are the smaUest commerciaUy

avaUable sizes The filtration unit operation was evaluated both as the only treatment

technique and as the initial operation in a filtration carbon adsorption treatment scheme

1 c

c

c

For an evaluation of the carbon adsorption unit operation samples of the three fUtrates were

percolated through a 1 glass column charged with Calgon brand activated carbon Calgons

powdered activated 325 mesh carbon was recommended by Calgon for use in the bench-

scale studies because it decreases the contact time required for adsorption and can be filtered

out of the groundwater with a 045 micron pore size filter Each fUtrate was subjected to the

same carbon treatment The flow rate through the carbon column was adjusted to simulate

the fuU scale onsite carbon adsorption flow rate

113 Results

The results of the Phase I treatability study showed that PCBs the contaminants of greatest

concem were not removed by the filtration unit operation when it was employed as the only

treatment technique This indicates that the PCBs were dissolved or adhered to suspended

material finer than the smaUest commerciaUy avaUable filter pore size and that filtration

alone carmot remove PCBs to the cleanup level Activated carbon is necessary to achieve

PCB cleanup levels

The PCB results from the filtered carbon adsorbed samples indicated that the carbon

removed aU of the PCBs to a concentration of less than 05 xgL The analytical data was

vaUdated using the Data QuaUty Objective (DQO) Level HI criteria outlined in the

Groundwater Bench-Scale Phase I treatability Study QuaUty Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)

All of the analytical data was determined to be vaUd The PCB analytical resuUs are

presented in Table 1-1

One sample of the treated groundwater discharge from the interim treatment operation was

coUected on November 25 1991 The sample was analyzed and found to contain less than

050 jugL PCBs This sample was also analyzed for the twenty three Target Analyte List

(TAL) metals All of the metals concentrations were below the discharge limits calculated

based on AWQC and the flow rate of the discharge and the Neponset River See Tables 1-2

c

c

c

TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF PCB RESULTS FOR PHASE I TREATABILITY SAMPLES

Aroclor 1254 Surrogate Recoveries Concentration xgL TCMX DBC

Initial Sample 48 J 26 93 (Settled Decanted)

Coarse FUtered 63 J 57 102

Coarse FUtered DupUcate 79 140 105

Medium FUtered 59 61 108

Fine FUtered 52 78 97

Coarse FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 75 105

Medium FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 72 92

Fine FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 101

Method Blank 050 UJ 58

Pump Equipment Blank 050 UJ 36 110

TCMX = 2 4 5 6 tetrachlorometaxylene CLP 390 SOW Advisory Recovery Range 60 shy150

DBC = Dibutylchlorendate CLP 288 SOW Advisory Recovery Range 24-154

A non-PCB positive interfering compound coeluted with the DBC surrogate in the method blank therefore the surrogate recovery could not be quantitated

Aroclors 1221 1232 1242 1248 and 1260 were nondetected (050 U) in aU samples

Coarse FUter 10 micron pore size Medium FUter 5 micron pore size Fine FUter 1 micron pore size

c

o C) o TABLE 1-2 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER WITH EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

bull v - o x - - - - - - - - bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - - bull bull bull

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull gt bull bull bull bull gt bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull o gt pMWmmmXiiizz-mm^ 4SoSiSSiyS iSs DAILY - AVQ ^bull sectMMMsectMM mM i^i^^^^

W^MM^0 i ^^ ^ i ^ ^ ) ) ^ ^ ^ ^

liffiSaiArtiMifiig wampsectii^i9MMzWMM^lt

i 0 t M B W ^ SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE

-yio|ijMi i|5|laquoiilifc^ li^Oimim

PHASEn PHASE I PHASE

SURFACE BEDROCK BEDROCK

SjiA3tliilAM|li-^ isiowfciili^rBo^

(van) (uan) (uou

PHASEE

BEDROCK

fuow

iiHiisii BEDROCK

iiiiiiiiiixiii ixc ilfeiiili f-iO(3Msect

Wyt(Bm m^mmM miimmiM camamm WmM-M

|ii|iiiU-S |JipSEsiit||l ^ ^

Mi(iiteiii iciiiiitiii f-Wi^WM

ilii^y^iii illi^i^liliiiSl-liN lGipilaquooiraquoi|i|ii| ^^^ljMm$m-

MAXIMUM

EFFLUENT

DISCHARGE

bull^ bull bull L E V E L bullbullbull

(U6L) (8gt(gt)

MONTHLY

EFFLUENT

DISCHAROE

bull iLEVEL bullbull

(tlOLi (8)(9)

bull||yensi|| W0fW^iz

DISCHAROE

sectBlWW$W ( U a U (8)(9)

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull

iiil iW^

VOLATILE OROANICS

111-TricUoiocthuie 3 3 - - NC NC 170000 NC NC 68850000

M^iM^l ia i t i^^ W MMf ^ ^ i ^ M

Vinyl Chloride

mMWMimMilBMMM iil|||i||i||i|||||

14 14 73

SSi5i5

W S X i i m S M 120 23 6S 110

bull -

bull bull T

no

Wfimmim ISiMBB

NC

llliNGSM iiiipltiiii

NC

bulliiSfi4i|ii-

li PIiAlio|jifshy-3250

mimpmamp wwrnmim-NC

ampampllz-^f^C

Wwyen WM NC

170100

bull bull bull bull shy bull ^ raquo - S 5 lt gt

2126250

12-Dieliloroethene (toUl) 77 300 199 560 44 68 43 no 11600 (13) NC 1400000 (4) 4698000 NC 567000000

|||iiSi^i||laquo|||ii^^^^^^^^

Xylenei (total)

kz^z23i(iwMitiMM^^ W0$0Tisectsectg^^

6 6 shy

|isii7Pois

WlampMlMampW0 - shy shy shy

i-wip

-

z4smmm lmm0(M

NC

sSiiiraquolii(i)l iilltlaquoili

NC

i--iii ii -^lli||Piiiii

NC

ioisiaiiiSipop lsectfiMm

NC

i-Mti969M)

i - zF ^M SC

372ib0

$$laquo43

NC

bullWz-i

SEMIVOLATILES

23S-Trichioioi)beaol 10 10 - - NC NC NC NC NC NC

j|NiiwUfl|ropw^^

13-Dictiloiobeiizeiie

sectMimiMmm^ i|il||||iii|i||i

4 4 shy

i-siJ(t| ii|i WSMWiMMMiWMMM^

-

WMsect M WBWWrshy-

MiMxim- $MM^Mz

NO

m-z^mmi m^msmm NC

IM---iiiMMM WzMW Sk

2600

|Siii laquowq zz^Wlt^^

NC

bullMz-zziMii WzlMM

NC

kiMAz-iMampi WmtW^

1053000

14-Dichlorobenzeiie 14 14 48 67 shy shy shy - NC NC 2600 NC NC 1053000

| i i | l i t j | i i | i | ^

ii|ii|llllilill^ bullimMmMMiiMWMM ghif^m^MmMmiM^

iSmMMyMMsectsectMfziM^ i||||i|i |i|j|||^

bulliMMiiM ^zZ^ZzZZZZ^

^ --zllMMmd |sii|i|ii|

- ISSiiii lls-^iiil

i^iMM^i-iM wiiiW^Sz

iliiO-ii i l- iif-iiiii

WM--z ampiM fampMM

f bull iSilwiobtti

|i|3jl|i|

P C B I

Aioclor-1254 34 180 26 89 64 8 24 27 20 fT) 0014 CT) 00045 810 57 18 AF

secti^^MMMampMM^^ Aroclor-1254 (paper-filtered)

Arociot-124S

BM iM-mi-MmsectMMMiz iiili|iiililiiiliiliiiii

- - l i

liJii -rilSiiiiiil

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii l-l il shy shy -

ilJi|i i-sectsectMBsect i

-

j 0 lt7) iOjCT)

20 (7)

Oi014 (7)

001 (7)

0014 CD

immmmB WMi^MampMi

00IM5

MM--zMshyi bulll l i l i |iloi

^

-bull-iigtM

WsectM0-amp 57

nzzmmm mlBWM

18

V

Aroclof-1248 (ghit-filteRd) 4 4 shy shy shy - 20 (7) 0014 CT) 00045 810 57 18 F

Phaie I RI umpling conducted in May 1988 Phaae II RI lampling conducted in April 1989

NC bull No criteria cxitta for thia compound

(1) Inaufficient Data to Develop Criteria Value preaented ia LOEL shy Loweit Obierved Effect Level

(2) Value preaented for carelnogeiia ia the 10-5 level

(3) Value preaented ia for dichloroethenea

(4) Value preieoted ia for trana 12-dichloroetliene

(5) pH dependent criteria (78 pH uted)

(6) Value preaented ia for chlorinated benzenea

(7) Value presented ia for total PCBa

(8) Effluent DiKhaige Limit based upon an effluent discharge of 5 gpm to the Neponset River during the 7-day low flow lOyr recurrence (2O20gpm)

USGS Pleasant Street Oauging Station on the Neponset River

(9) Dilution factor =[(5gpm+2020gpm)5gpml= 405

(lO)Concentration exceeds effluent discharge limit contaminant must be removed by Groundwater Treatment Plant before discharge to surface water [D=DAILY MAX A=AVG MONTHLY F=FISH]

-

-

-

- - -

-

-

-

-

-

o n o TABLE 1-3 COMPARISON OF METAL CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER WFTH EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull bull bull bull gt gt bull gt bull bull bull bull bull - bull bulliii|vO|| iS iggJMLnei i iaD s-UNFILTEREDgssHis M-B33nsRmmMMM D A I L Y iiiiiiiiiiiiiAVGiiiiii |i mmmmMmmm Xy lira^li P H A S E I WtiiMM liwiAiiiii iiiiimiii iii-pHiwiiliiiii WampMM P H A S E I ilii iiwgiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiili|i| iiii iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii M A X I M U M iiiiipifriiii^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiiifiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

555^gt5^5V555^^^^ i i i ilaquoiij S U R F A C E m m m Wtm^itM B E D R O C K bull bull gt f t bullbullbull B E D R O C K iiiFRiiliiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiijsiiiiiriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii|iiiiiiliiiiiiii E F F L U E N T E F F L U E N T E F F L U E N T iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii wmmm |||ii||li| |i IliAiiiiil WliampiMM liiiiltiilii^isiiii liiiiifctAXliii iiiAiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^i^iibhreiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii liiiiiii iiHiiiiiiiiiiiiii- D I S C H A R O E D I S C H A R O E D I S C H A R O E iiiii imm^mi mmmn WmMm WBrnB

PARAlt4ETER W iMmm iiiiiiiii iiitjiiiii Wi^MMM iiii iiiiiiiiilii iiiaraquoliiii W-imMMi iiiiiiaiiiii mMmmmm iCSiiMAiiiiii O O N S U M P iiiiiiiVEitiiii liiiiisyifeEiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiitiiiiL iiii cii^i iiiiiifl|5iili iiiiiiili (UOW iiiiiiii (oon) iiiiult3piili (UOL) lzMcii0m (UGL) iipiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|^(Siliiiiiiiiii|iiiiii (UOL) (2) (UOL) (6)C7) (IKJL) (6)C7) (UOn) (6) C7) i^iipi

M E T A L S

A h m i n u m 154000 390000 119 352 12500 43900 74 77 NA NA NA NC NC NC

i^poundi1i liiiiiii^iii iiiiiiiPi iii|ilsi iliiiJsiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iii-iili liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii-raquoiiiilti)ij^i JiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiW)i(5i iiiiiiiiiiiiii6Pigtiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiS5iraquoii)i iiiiiitiraquo50 iiiiii3f laquoltraquollishyJ^Sn^iii-illii iiiillifil II |-Iilliiii WlampMi liiliii-ii iiiiiiiifiiiiiili 22a iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii^iiiliiiiiii iiiiiiiiN iiiiiiliiiiiiiii iii-iiiiiiiiiii ifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii fiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiii i iiiiii i j ^ i iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiip iiiiiiiii Bar ium 690 1640 67 2laquo9 53 147 97 19 NC NC NC (5) NC NC NC Beryll ium 18 32 130 (1) 53 (1) 131 52650 2147 531

|^i^ii|litx i s bull liillliSi ZZZZZZZZZ i|||i-^i - iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiii --i|yiiiWi iiiifslt^laquoiiiiiii3jiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiltfcjii i(3yiiiliii iiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiJC iiii-S iifiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMi iiiiiiilii154- bull i i - i i6laquo856i mzMkm iiiiiiiliiii ii|iijji||ii|||i 9lMMi MmiMi zZ^ mm iiiiiiiifi li^iiiiiiiiiraquoliiii 33100 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilMi^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiieiiiii^iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Pi iiiiiiiiiiiiNti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij^i

Chromium 206 526 1 8 18 34 104 16 W 11 (4) 3200 (4) 648b 4455 1296000 -Cobal t 113 295 19 22 36 40 NC NC NC NC NC NC

fMgtimi-^ztm zmisectmi iMiMM wmmi M^iiiiampii iiJiiM 189 iiiiiiiiiisiiiiiilaquo3iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifii iiiiiiiiiiiliiiii^-iiiii isiiiiiiiiiiisiiiii CJiiiiiijiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiStCiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM bullsiiiii iiiiiiili5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiigtireii iiiiiiii-shy bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull iiiiiiliiiiiiWiii bull bull laquo raquo - iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiilifii iiiiiiiiiiii iii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii l i i i i i i i i i i^ i l l l i s i i iiiiii i-iiiiiiiSiiiiiiisiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|fltii- 405000 iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiwii iiiiAiiishymBmmm imampmm WmMM Wimm iiiiillili iiiiiiiiliiiiiii

Lead 43 i t3 21 168 l i 37 30 168 14 (3) 054 p) NC 5670 219 NC

Magnes ium 42400 148000 3950 8990 8630 21100 5040 11200 NC NC NC NC NC NC

iiititlj^iusibiii^j iilllJii^ -M-W^M iiiiiiii^^i^ ii-|7laquo- L5W iiiiiiiiiiiiiilliiifii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiltiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii ii5iiiiiiie iiiiiiiiiiii bullbull bull l t raquo iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNC iiiiiiii isci i i i | | i i i | | i p i i II0M^I iiiiiliiiiiiiiilii WM^MmM ilillilflil i | | | l il |o| | l i i l i P liiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiip8iii bullbull ( U si i l i l i iiiiii- iiii-li|i5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiipiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiii -i- o-iil bull iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiii laquoiii

Nicke l 164 452 64 104 643 (3) 33 (3) 3800 260415 13365 1539000 -Potaaaium 13100 33400 2800 5420 4580 9790 3280 5780 NC NC NC NC NC NC

i|i3laquo|i |s||i ilsectiampim illii|li MmMm iiliil|^i7ii il-lii^|iiraquoiii- (iiltii iliiiiiii^iiiiili^^^ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiii2iwiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiliis lt 6800 ii5iiiiiiiyilaquoJpll i iiiiiiiiiifiiil ^iiilOWi iiiiiii3^lHWraquoi iiiiii--i

|i|||ii Iliii illl|iillSI |illliSl^| illillaquoii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiliiltiii laquo raquo iiiiiiiiiiiii||i||| iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii|i|ltoigttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiliiiiilii iiiiiiiiiiiii bull^bull i l iNc| i-|iiiii -i-iii ii gti5 i iiiiiiiili^^ iiiiiiiiiiii Oiiiiiiii|i bulliiiiiiii Sodium 14100 28900 12500 26raquo00 16320 33200 16300 68000 N c NC NC Nc NC Nc Thal l ium 10 10 58 10 1400 (1) 40 (1) 32 567000 16200 1296

igtPiiiilli MmmmiM liilililil iiliiiiisii iii|ii| bulliiii iiiiiisiiilii iiiiiiiiiiiii|i ii^|i iiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii iiiiiiii ii^iliiiiiiiNiilliiiiiiiji- bulli|iiiiiflaquoSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii|lNe-|i-ii iiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Nc iiiiiii liiNCii iiiiiii iiiiiiiilifiei iiiii iiiiiii iilaquo|||il| mmmmi m m m i M iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisil i iiiisiiiiilllii iiiiliiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiitii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiii iiiiiiliili-|s4ii iiilliiiiiiii ssiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii^^iii-iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii 13365 iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiip^ P b a i e I RI sampling conducted in M a y 1988 Phase II RI samplmg conducted in Apri l 1989

N C = N o cri teria exiata for th is compotmd

N A = N o t Available

(1) Insufficient Data to Develop Cri ter ia Value presented is L O E L - Lowest Observed Effect Level

(2) Value preaented for careinogena ia the 10-S level

(3) Hardness dependent c r i te r ia (25 mgA C A C 0 3 uaed)

(4) Value presented is for Ihe m o r e toxic hexavalent form

(5) Value presented is proposed (more conservat ive)

(6) Effluent Discharge L imi t dilution factor based upon an effluent discbarge of 5 gpm to the Neponse t River during the 7 - d a y low flow lOyr recurrence (2020gpm)

USOS Pleasant Street Oaug ing atation on the Neponset River

(7) Dilut ion factor =[(Sgpm+2020gpm)Sgpm]= 405

(lO)Concentration exceeds effluent discharge limit contaminant must be removed by Groundwate r Treatment Plant before discharge to Ihe Neponset River [ D = D A I L Y M A X A = A V O M O N T H L Y F=FISH]

c and 1-3 for effluent (Uscharge limits for organic and inorganic compounds An acute toxicity

test showed that no toxic effect was observed for the interim treatment discharge

114 Conclusions

Based on the results of the Phase I bench scale treatabUity study the combined unit

operations of fUtration foUowed by carbon adsorption were effective in treating the

contaminated groundwater coUected during the pumping tests for temporary discharge to the

Neponset River A sample of the discharge was coUected during the groundwater treatment

and it was found to contain less than the quantitation limit of 05 xgL of PCB The metals

concentrations were aU determined to be below the discharge criteria A sample was also

coUected and submitted for an acute toxicity determination The resuUs showed that no toxic

effect was observed The bench scale treatability results and the on-line discharge analyses

demonstrate that the filtration and carbon adsorption unit operations were effective temporary

treatment techniques

^ 12 FULL SCALE STUDY

A groundwater treatability study was conducted to evaluate the performance of four different

treatment processes on contaminated groundwater obtained from the Norwood PCB site The

contaminants present in the groundwater were determined during previous studies conducted

in May 1988 and AprU 1989 by EBASCO Chapter 1 of the Final FeasibUity Study

(EBASCO 1989c) contains an overview of the results obtained during these investigations

Based on the resuUs of the May 1988 and AprU 1989 field investigations EPA concluded

that the overburden and bedrock aquifers beneath the site were contaminated with

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and volatUe and semivolatile organic compounds (VOCs

and SVOCs) It was determined that surficial and subsurface soUs dredge pUes of sediments

taken from Meadow Brook sediments in Meadow Brook and sediments in the drainage

system of the buUding operated by Grant Gear were the sources of the contamination In

r

c September 1989 EPA released the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Norwood PCB site In

the ROD EPA directed that groundwater be treated with a system including activated carbon

air stripping with vapor controls and precipitationfiltration iEPA also directed that

treatability studies or pUot studies be conducted to aid in the overaU design of the system

In accordance with the ROD a bench scale treatabUity study was conducted at the ENSECO

Laboratory Facility in Cambridge Massachusetts by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel between

January 14 and February 16 1992 This report presents a description of the work

completed resuUs and conclusions of the study

121 Objectives

The fuU-scale groundwater treatability study was conducted to determine if treatment

consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping and carbon adsorption would effectively

remove the contamination present in the groundwater at the Norwood PCB site to appUcable

standards Information on the percent reduction of organic and inorganic compounds in the

groundwater volume type of residual and byproducts produced by each component were

also investigated A schematic detailing the treatability study and the sampling and analysis

conducted is presented in Figure 1-1

122 Description of Work

The treatability study was performed in accordance with Pre-Design Work Plan 3 and the

QuaUty Assurance Project Plan for the Phase n Bench-Scale TreatabiUty Study (Work

Plan 3)

Groundwater samples were coUected from the Norwood PCB site for use in this

investigation Interim sampling was performed on effluent streams generated from each

bench-scale process for analysis according to Table 1-4 Influent and final effluent samples

generated during the groundwater treatabiUty were coUected and analyzed through the CLP

^

o JAR TESTING SAMPLE ID

o

POLYMER TESTING

RAW GROUNDWATER

VOL 1 SVOL I p PCB f ^ ^ METALS

mdash SST

T

T

T

SS - Choose Polymer T ar)d Dose Estimate pH pf i After Coagu lant

Jar Test 1 PH10 bull

Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

Ume wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

Jar Test 2 pH9

Jar Test 3 pH8

bull

Lime w C oag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

JT1 -1 shy

j r i -2 shy

JT1 -3 shy

JTI-4

j r 2 - 1

JT2-2 shy

JT2-3

j r2-4 bull

JT3-1 shy

JT3-2shy

JT3-3 bull

JT3-4 shy

HLTRATION TESTING

RIter Paper 1 - SS T Time mdash |

RIter Paper 2 - SS T Time-

Rlter Paper 3 - SS T Time -

CtHXise Filter Paper or Particle Retention Size

Sample Well Using Bailer

VOL SVOL PCB CLPMETALS (PPF-1)

Precipitate and Filter Using Optimized Polymer pH Coagulant and Filter

lt

AIR STRIPPING

AJrWater Ratio 1

AirWater Ratio 2

AirWater Ratio3 ~

VOLmdash1

-VOL

-VOLmdash

SAMPLE ID CARBON ADSORPTION (All by CLP)

Carbon mdashVOL SVOL Metals AC-1

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-2

Dose 3 mdash ^ deg shy reg ^ deg ^^reg ^ ^

Carbon

Dose1

Carbon Dose 2

Cartwn

Dose 4

Cartxjn Dose 1

Carbon Dose2~

Carbon Dose 3

Carbon Dose4~

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-4

-VOL C-1

-VOL SVOL Metals C-2

-VOL PCB C-3

bull VOL SVOL Chronic Toxicity C-4

Jar Test 4 pH 10 Dup

bull

- Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

Jr4-1

JT4-2

JT4-3

Carbon Doses

Cartxgtn Dose 6

-VOL SVOL PCB

mdash VOL Metals

C-5

C-6

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals JT4-4

VOL = Volatile Organics SVOL = Semi Volatile Organics

Carbon Dose 7

mdashVOL SVOL C-7

SS = Suspended Solids

NaOH-MNAL JT5-1 T = Turbidity

Jar Test 5 pHIO

NaOH - wPolymer - MN AL

NaOH wPoly wCoag RItered - MN AL

JT5-2

JT5-3

NaOH wPdy wCoag Aerated andRItered - MN AL

JT5-4

^ NaOH wPdy wCoag PermanganateRItered - MN M

JT5-5

J O Special FIGURE 1-1 TREATABILITY STUDY

Optimize pH Decide Ume or NaOH

SAMPUNG AND ANALYSIS SCHEMATIC

Compare Polymer vs Coagulant

(J DF222658HW

c

c

TABLE 1-4 TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Number Bench Scale Process

Groundwater Treatability Study

Initial Groundwater

Preliminary Polymer Testing

Precipitation Supemant

FUtration Effluent

Metals Sludge Precipitated and FUtered Effluent with Groundwater CoUected with BaUer

Air Stripping Effluent

Air Stripped Carbon Adsorption Effluent

Non Air Stripped Carbon Effluent

Sludge Sample

Rock Washing Study

Initial Rocks Initial Gravel from roof Stone from Cap Washed Rocks Washed Stones

Samples

1

1 1

16 16 16

3 3

1 2 2 2

3

4 4 2 2

7 4 2 2 1 1

3 5 6 3 1

Analysis

VolatUes SemivolatUes PCB Metals Suspended SoUds pH Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity Metals VolatUe Organics

Suspended SoUds TuAidity

PCB VolatUe Organics PCB SemivolatUe Organics

VolatUe Organics

SemivolatUe Organics VolatUe Organics Metals PCB

VolatUe Organics SemivolatUe Organics Metals PCB Chronic Toxicity PCBs Metals

PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB

Laboratory

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

c

c

c

system for volatUes semivolatUes PCBs and metals AU interim samples were analyzed at

ENSECO in Cambridge Massachusetts AU data was vaUdated by MampE according to the

QAPP

1221 Groundwater Sample CoUection Groundwater for this study was coUected from

weUs MW-IA and ME-8 as shown on Figure 1-2 iMW-lA was chosen as a sampling

location because it was determined to be one of the most contaminated weUs on-site based

on previous investigations During the course of the treatabiUty study a decision was made

to obtain samples from ME-8 because results of the most recent sampling effort conducted by

ICF indicated that groundwater from this weU contained approximately 200 xgL vinyl

chloride whereas groundwater from MW-IA no longer contained any quantifiable amount

Removal of vinyl chloride by aeration needed to be demonstrated during this investigation

because vinyl chloride is not effectively removed by carbon adsorption

Groundwater samples were obtained on four separate occasions during the study as shown in

Table 1-5 On each occasion the groundwater was coUected in accordance with the Field

Sampling Plan Three weU volumes of water were purged from the weU using a centrifiigal

pump before any samples were coUected The pH temperature and conductivity of the

purge water was measured after each weU volume untU the measured values differed by less

than 10 for three consecutive samples to ensure the sample drawn was representative of the

water in the aquifer Samples for the metals precipitation and filtration study were coUected

using a centrifugal pump Samples for the air stripping and carbon adsorption study were

coUected with a teflon baUer to minimize aeration and possible loss of volatUes during

sample coUection

The samples were coUected in one gallon amber glass bottles and stored at 4degC Each

sample bottle wasfiUed to exclude a headspace in the bottle

e 10

200 200

SCALE IN FEET

D CAP ROCK SAMPLE LOCATION

bull WELLS

nOURE 1-2 GROUNDWATER AND TRENCH AND CAP

ROCK SAMPLING LOCATIONS

11

E T C A L F a EDDY

c TABLE 1-5 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING SUMMARY

Mode of Date WeU Amount Sampled pH Temp degC Conductivity SampUng

11392 MW-IA 10 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm pump

12792 MW-IA 16 gaUons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20392 MW-IA 16 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20592 ME-8 2 gallons 64 8deg 230 umhocm baUer

1222 Precipitation Testing

General Chemical precipitation for the removal of metals was evaluated at three pH values

and three polymer dosages to determine the effectiveness of the treatment A preliminary

evaluation of different coagulants and polymers was conducted at three pH values by

r Metcalf amp Eddy personnel and a leading polymer vendor to determine which chemicals could

potentiaUy be used to precipitate groundwater Based on the results from the preliminary

evaluation jar tests were conducted by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel to aid in the determination

of the chemical dosages required to optimize the effectiveness of precipitation

Polymer and Coagulent Testing Polymer testing was performed by Metcalf amp Eddy and a

leading polymer vendor at the ENSECO laboratory faciUty in Cambridge Massachusetts

The effectiveness of anionic cationic and nonioiuc polymer was evaluated at three pH

values The best polymer was determined to be Drewfloc 2270 a low charge anionic high

molecular weight polymer This polymer was used in jar tests 1 through 5 The best

coagulent was determined to be Charge Pack 12 (CP-12) a higher charge cationic low

molecular weight coagulent The CP-12 coagulent was used in jar tests 1 through 5

described under jar testing

12 c

InitiaUy the effects of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was investigated Tests c were conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 with sodium hydroxide which had the best

settling characteristics based on visual observation and turbidity measurement Each polymer

was then tested at pH = 100 to evaluate Us effectiveness under optimum pH conditions

A formula of polymer and coagulant addition was developed based on visual observations

suspended soUds and turbidity analyses performed on each sample generated during the

investigation The anionic polymer effectively flocculated the existing smaU suspended

particles and the addkion of cationic coagulant removed iron and color when the pH was

raised to 100

Jar Testing Five jar tests were performed using the polymer and coagulants determined to

be effective during preliminary testing Jar tests 1 and 4 were conducted as dupUcates at

ph 10 Jar test 2 was conducted at pH 9 jar test 3 was conducted at pH 8 and jar test 5 was

conducted at pH 10 On each occasion prior to beginning the jar test the raw groundwater

was brought tol5deg-17degCina warm water bath The temperature was held constant to c eliminate the effects of temperature on reaction rates and solubUity

The foUowing is a description of activities conducted during the jar tests fti through 4 See

Figure 1-1 for details Four samples were evaluated during each jar test For each jar test

four 15 Uter beakers were fiUed with 1 Uter of raw groundwater The beakers were placed

on the stirrer platform and the paddles were lowered into the sample The jar stirrer was

operated at 80 revolutions per minute (rpm) The pH was then adjusted to the desired value

(pH = 10 9 8 10 for Tests 1 2 3 4) with a lime slurry in two samples and with a

sodium hydroxide solution (25) in the remaining two samples Lime was added to

investigate its effects on the precipitate and to evaluate its effectiveness in pH adjustment

The cationic coagulant was then added to each sample untU the concentration in solution was

30 mgL The solution was stirred at 80 rpm for 2 minutes to ensure complete mixing The

polymer was then added to one sample pH adjusted with sodium hydroxide and one sample

pH adjusted with lime Mixing continued for two minutes Next the solution was stirred

13 c

slowly orflocculated for five minutes at 20 rpm FinaUy the solutions were aUowed to

c settle for 10 minutes Visual observations were recorded and samples were submitted for

suspended soUds turbidity and metals analyses

Jar test 5 was performed to assess the removal of manganese and aluminum by preaeration

and permanganate additions (see Figure 1-1) Because no significant benefit was observed in

the previous tests when lime was used instead of sodium hydroxide sodium hydroxide was

used to adjust the pH in aU four samples to a pH of 100 in jar test 5 Only sodium

hydroxide was added to the groundwater in the first jar to determine the removal of

manganese and aluminum attributable to the formation of an insoluble salt at high pH

Sodium hydroxide and polymer were added to the second jar to evaluate the effectiveness of

the polymer Sodium hydroxide polymer and coagulant were added to sample 4 The

supemate from sample 4 was then fUtered This was performed to determine if the required

removal efficiencies could be achieved by chemical precipitation and filtration

Permanganate was added to sample 3 in addition to sodium hydroxide coagulant and

polymer to determine if the manganese and aluminum present could be chemicaUy oxidized c to a less soluble state which would enhance the efficiency of fUtration The supemate was

then siphoned off using clean tygon tubing and a syringe into the sample containers

Samples were submitted for metals suspended soUds and turbidity as illustrated on

Figure 1-1

1223 Filtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was perfonned to determine the

optimum pore size of filter media that could effectively remove the suspended soUds in the

precipitated groundwater The determination of the removal efficiency for each filter was

based on the concentration of suspended soUds and turbidity of the filtered water The time

required to filter the groundwater was also evaluated

Prior to filtration the metals in the groundwater were precipitated and coagulent and polymer

were added using the optimum conditions developed during the precipitation study The

optimum conditions consisted of pH adjustment to 10 with sodium hydroxide addition of

14 c

coagulent CP-12 to a concentration of one percent and addition of Drewfloc 2270 polymer to

c a concentration of 10 mgl Three grades (10 xm 5 xm and 1 xm pore sizes) of filter

paper were used with a Buchner ftmnel to filter aUquots of the precipitated groundwater

Samples of the filtered water were submitted to ENSECO for suspended soUds and turbidity

analysis

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge was coUected during the treatability study The

sludge sample was submitted to the CLP system for PCB and metals analysis so that a

characterization of the sludge could be made and disposal options could be evaluated

1224 Air Stripping Testing Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at three

different air to water ratios to determine the most effective stripping ratio To ensure that

worst case volatUe organic compound concentrations were present in the samples for this

study some modifications were made in how the sample was coUected and treated First

the groundwater was coUected with a baUer to prevent the loss of volatUes AdditionaUy the

water was fUtered under positive pressure foUowing the precipitation step to minimize the c loss of volatUes that would result if the water was filtered using a vacuum pump

An aquarium pump tygon tubing and aeration stone with a glass-fiber fUter cartridge was

used to aerate 1-Uter aUquots of precipitated and filtered groundwater The aeration flow

rate was caUbrated by filling a graduated cylinder with air that had been filled with tap water

and inverted in a water bath The air was diffused at 375 missec into 1-Uter aUquots of

groundwater and the time measured as iUustrated in Table 1-6 The aerated groundwater was

submitted to ENSECO for volatUe organics analysis

1225 Carbon Adsorption Testing The effectiveness of activated carbon for the removal

of organic compounds in the groundwater at the site was evaluated The carbon used was

the powdered activated 325 mesh carbon suppUed by Calgon Corporation The groundwater

samples used for this investigation were obtained and filtered as described in the air stripping

15 c

c

c

TABLE 1-6 AERATION TEST OPERATIONS

Air to Water Ratio Volume Volume of by Volume of Water Air Reqd Min of Aeration

251 1000 ml 25000 ml 111 501 1000 ml 50000 ml 222 751 1000 ml 75000 ml 333

section of this report to minimize the loss of volatUes A total of twelve samples were mn

during this investigation The necessity of air stripping was investigated by comparing the

resuUs from four samples that were air stripped to seven samples that were treated identicaUy

with the exception of air stripping AU samples for the air stripping comparison went

through the precipitation filtration and carbon adsorption processes AdditionaUy one

sample was prepared with no carbon added to serve as an untreated sample The samples are

summarized in Table 1-7 Each groundwater sample was prepared and mixed with a

predetermined dose of Calgon powdered 325 mesh activated carbon and placed m an open

Erlenmyer flask on a shaker table for a two-hour time period at 180 rpm A rotary shaker

table capable of accommodating twelve (12)-1000 ml Erlenmyer flasks was used Effluent

was fUtered with a barrel filter using a glass-fiber pre-fUter and a Whatman 45 micron

membrane The effluent clear and odorless in aU cases was added to sample containers

preserved and packed for shipment to CLP laboratories Since the shaker table could

accommodate 12 flasks a total of approximately 4 gaUons of effluent was generated during

each mn Several mns were performed to generate adequate quantities of sample for

analysis accordmg to Table 1-7 Groundwater was simUarly prepared for submittal to

Aquatec Lab in Burlington Vermont for chronic toxicity testing Three (3) shipments of

approximately 2 gaUons each were made

r 16

C) o o TABLE 1-7 CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation Filtration Aeration amp Carbon

AC-1 05 V SV MET 3400 3 1067 054 AC-2 20 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 22 AC-3 50 V SV MET 3400 3 1133 57 AC-4 100 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 110 AC-5 Trip Blank 0 V

Precipitation Filtration amp Carbon

C-0 0 V 500 1 500 0

C-1 05 V SV MET 3200 3 1067 053

c-2 10 V PCB 2200 2 1100 11

C-3 20 V SV CT 29000 24 1250 25

C-4 50 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 55

C-17 70 V MET 1200 1 1200 70

C-18 100 V SV 2200 2 1100 110

C-13 Treatability Blank 0 V PCB 2200 0 0 0

C-20 Trip Blank 0 V 0

C-10 Duplicate of C-1 05 SV 2000 2 1000 05

C-1 05 (MSMSD) 500 1 500 025

C-11 Duplicate of C-1 05 MET 1000 1 1000 05

C-20 Duplicate of C-2 10 V PCB (MSMSD)

4400 4 1100 11

C-16 Duplicate of C-4 50 PCB 2000 2 1000 50

C-6 0 PCB 2000 2 1000 0

17

o o n TABLE 1-7 (Continued) CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation amp Filtration

PPF-1 V SV MET PCB 2000 2 1000 0

Sludge

Sludge-1 0 MET PCB 0

V = VolatUe organics SV = Semivolatile organics MET = Metals PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls CT = Chronic toxicity MSMSD = Matrix spikematrix spike dup D = DupUcate TB = Trip blank PPF = Precipitated and pressure filtered

(to minimize volatUes loss as opposed to vacuum filtration)

18

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

r LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1-1 Summary of PCB Results for Phase I Treatability Study Samples 3

1-2 Comparison of Organic Contamination in Groundwater to Effluent Discharge Levels - Temporary Discharge to the Neponset River 4

1-3 Comparison of Metal Contamination in Groundwater to Effluent Discharge Levels - Temporary Discharge to the Neponset River 5

1-4 Treatability Study Sampling and Analysis Summary 9

1-5 Groundwater SampUng Summary 12

1-6 Aeration Test Operations 16 r 1-7 CLP Treatability Study Sampling Summary 17

1-8 Preliminary Polymer Testing Results 20

1-9 FuU-Scale TreatabUity Study Jar Test Results 21

1-10 Metal Hydroxide Sludge Resuhs 23

1-11 FUtration Study Results 24

1-12 FuU-Scale TreatabUity Study Air Stripping Results for WeU MW-IA 25

1-13 FuU-Scale Treatability Study Air Stripping Results for

WeU ME-8 26

1-14 FuU-Scale Treatability Study Carbon Adsorption ResuUs 27

1-15 FuU-Scale Treatability Study Aeration and Carbon Adsorption Results 29 c m

1-16 Comparison of Inorganic FuU-Scale Treatability Study ResuUs to MCLs and Discharge Levels - Discharge to c the Neponset River 31

1-17 Comparison of Inorganic FuU-Scale Treatability Study ResuUs to MCLs and Discharge Levels shyDischarge to Meadow Brook 32

1-18 Comparison of Organic FuU-Scale Treatability Study ResuUs to MCLs and Discharge Levels shyDischarge to the Neponset River 33

1-19 Comparison of Organic FuU-Scale Treatability Study Results to MCLs and Discharge Levels shyDischarge to Meadow Brook 34

2-1 Trench Rock Washing Results 40

2-2 Interim Remedial Cap Rock Analytical Results 42

( w

IV c

Section One

10 GROUNDWATER

11 INTERIM STUDY

111 Introduction and Objectives

Performance of the pumping test phase of the hydrogeologic investigation at the Norwood

PCB site resulted in the accumulation of approximately 25000 gaUons of contaminated

groundwater In order to properly dispose of this contaminated groundwater a Phase I bench

scale treatabUity study was undertaken The objective of the treatabiUty study was to

determine whether two unit operations filtration and carbon adsorption would be effective

in treating the contaminated groundwater so that it could be discharged to the Neponset River

under a temporary permit without any adverse effects to human health or the environment

112 Description of Work

c On August 28 1991 a sample of groundwater was coUected from the Norwood PCB site for

use in the Phase I bench-scale treatability study The sample was coUected from WeU

MW-IA one of the most contaminated weUs at the Norwood PCB site The Phase I

groundwater treatability study was conducted and sample analysis performed during

September 1991 at Hydrosample Laboratory in Northboro Massachusetts

The groundwater sampling and the generation of the treatability samples was conducted in

accordance with the Interim Pre-Design Work Plan No 3 Phase I for the temporary

groundwater treatment plant Three different pore size or particle retention grades of fUter

paper were evaluated for filtration rate and PCB removal The coarse Whatman filter had a

pore size of 10 microns the medium had a pore size of 5 microns and the fine had a pore

size of 1 micron These sizes were chosen because they are the smaUest commerciaUy

avaUable sizes The filtration unit operation was evaluated both as the only treatment

technique and as the initial operation in a filtration carbon adsorption treatment scheme

1 c

c

c

For an evaluation of the carbon adsorption unit operation samples of the three fUtrates were

percolated through a 1 glass column charged with Calgon brand activated carbon Calgons

powdered activated 325 mesh carbon was recommended by Calgon for use in the bench-

scale studies because it decreases the contact time required for adsorption and can be filtered

out of the groundwater with a 045 micron pore size filter Each fUtrate was subjected to the

same carbon treatment The flow rate through the carbon column was adjusted to simulate

the fuU scale onsite carbon adsorption flow rate

113 Results

The results of the Phase I treatability study showed that PCBs the contaminants of greatest

concem were not removed by the filtration unit operation when it was employed as the only

treatment technique This indicates that the PCBs were dissolved or adhered to suspended

material finer than the smaUest commerciaUy avaUable filter pore size and that filtration

alone carmot remove PCBs to the cleanup level Activated carbon is necessary to achieve

PCB cleanup levels

The PCB results from the filtered carbon adsorbed samples indicated that the carbon

removed aU of the PCBs to a concentration of less than 05 xgL The analytical data was

vaUdated using the Data QuaUty Objective (DQO) Level HI criteria outlined in the

Groundwater Bench-Scale Phase I treatability Study QuaUty Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)

All of the analytical data was determined to be vaUd The PCB analytical resuUs are

presented in Table 1-1

One sample of the treated groundwater discharge from the interim treatment operation was

coUected on November 25 1991 The sample was analyzed and found to contain less than

050 jugL PCBs This sample was also analyzed for the twenty three Target Analyte List

(TAL) metals All of the metals concentrations were below the discharge limits calculated

based on AWQC and the flow rate of the discharge and the Neponset River See Tables 1-2

c

c

c

TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF PCB RESULTS FOR PHASE I TREATABILITY SAMPLES

Aroclor 1254 Surrogate Recoveries Concentration xgL TCMX DBC

Initial Sample 48 J 26 93 (Settled Decanted)

Coarse FUtered 63 J 57 102

Coarse FUtered DupUcate 79 140 105

Medium FUtered 59 61 108

Fine FUtered 52 78 97

Coarse FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 75 105

Medium FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 72 92

Fine FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 101

Method Blank 050 UJ 58

Pump Equipment Blank 050 UJ 36 110

TCMX = 2 4 5 6 tetrachlorometaxylene CLP 390 SOW Advisory Recovery Range 60 shy150

DBC = Dibutylchlorendate CLP 288 SOW Advisory Recovery Range 24-154

A non-PCB positive interfering compound coeluted with the DBC surrogate in the method blank therefore the surrogate recovery could not be quantitated

Aroclors 1221 1232 1242 1248 and 1260 were nondetected (050 U) in aU samples

Coarse FUter 10 micron pore size Medium FUter 5 micron pore size Fine FUter 1 micron pore size

c

o C) o TABLE 1-2 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER WITH EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

bull v - o x - - - - - - - - bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - - bull bull bull

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull gt bull bull bull bull gt bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull o gt pMWmmmXiiizz-mm^ 4SoSiSSiyS iSs DAILY - AVQ ^bull sectMMMsectMM mM i^i^^^^

W^MM^0 i ^^ ^ i ^ ^ ) ) ^ ^ ^ ^

liffiSaiArtiMifiig wampsectii^i9MMzWMM^lt

i 0 t M B W ^ SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE

-yio|ijMi i|5|laquoiilifc^ li^Oimim

PHASEn PHASE I PHASE

SURFACE BEDROCK BEDROCK

SjiA3tliilAM|li-^ isiowfciili^rBo^

(van) (uan) (uou

PHASEE

BEDROCK

fuow

iiHiisii BEDROCK

iiiiiiiiiixiii ixc ilfeiiili f-iO(3Msect

Wyt(Bm m^mmM miimmiM camamm WmM-M

|ii|iiiU-S |JipSEsiit||l ^ ^

Mi(iiteiii iciiiiitiii f-Wi^WM

ilii^y^iii illi^i^liliiiSl-liN lGipilaquooiraquoi|i|ii| ^^^ljMm$m-

MAXIMUM

EFFLUENT

DISCHARGE

bull^ bull bull L E V E L bullbullbull

(U6L) (8gt(gt)

MONTHLY

EFFLUENT

DISCHAROE

bull iLEVEL bullbull

(tlOLi (8)(9)

bull||yensi|| W0fW^iz

DISCHAROE

sectBlWW$W ( U a U (8)(9)

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull

iiil iW^

VOLATILE OROANICS

111-TricUoiocthuie 3 3 - - NC NC 170000 NC NC 68850000

M^iM^l ia i t i^^ W MMf ^ ^ i ^ M

Vinyl Chloride

mMWMimMilBMMM iil|||i||i||i|||||

14 14 73

SSi5i5

W S X i i m S M 120 23 6S 110

bull -

bull bull T

no

Wfimmim ISiMBB

NC

llliNGSM iiiipltiiii

NC

bulliiSfi4i|ii-

li PIiAlio|jifshy-3250

mimpmamp wwrnmim-NC

ampampllz-^f^C

Wwyen WM NC

170100

bull bull bull bull shy bull ^ raquo - S 5 lt gt

2126250

12-Dieliloroethene (toUl) 77 300 199 560 44 68 43 no 11600 (13) NC 1400000 (4) 4698000 NC 567000000

|||iiSi^i||laquo|||ii^^^^^^^^

Xylenei (total)

kz^z23i(iwMitiMM^^ W0$0Tisectsectg^^

6 6 shy

|isii7Pois

WlampMlMampW0 - shy shy shy

i-wip

-

z4smmm lmm0(M

NC

sSiiiraquolii(i)l iilltlaquoili

NC

i--iii ii -^lli||Piiiii

NC

ioisiaiiiSipop lsectfiMm

NC

i-Mti969M)

i - zF ^M SC

372ib0

$$laquo43

NC

bullWz-i

SEMIVOLATILES

23S-Trichioioi)beaol 10 10 - - NC NC NC NC NC NC

j|NiiwUfl|ropw^^

13-Dictiloiobeiizeiie

sectMimiMmm^ i|il||||iii|i||i

4 4 shy

i-siJ(t| ii|i WSMWiMMMiWMMM^

-

WMsect M WBWWrshy-

MiMxim- $MM^Mz

NO

m-z^mmi m^msmm NC

IM---iiiMMM WzMW Sk

2600

|Siii laquowq zz^Wlt^^

NC

bullMz-zziMii WzlMM

NC

kiMAz-iMampi WmtW^

1053000

14-Dichlorobenzeiie 14 14 48 67 shy shy shy - NC NC 2600 NC NC 1053000

| i i | l i t j | i i | i | ^

ii|ii|llllilill^ bullimMmMMiiMWMM ghif^m^MmMmiM^

iSmMMyMMsectsectMfziM^ i||||i|i |i|j|||^

bulliMMiiM ^zZ^ZzZZZZ^

^ --zllMMmd |sii|i|ii|

- ISSiiii lls-^iiil

i^iMM^i-iM wiiiW^Sz

iliiO-ii i l- iif-iiiii

WM--z ampiM fampMM

f bull iSilwiobtti

|i|3jl|i|

P C B I

Aioclor-1254 34 180 26 89 64 8 24 27 20 fT) 0014 CT) 00045 810 57 18 AF

secti^^MMMampMM^^ Aroclor-1254 (paper-filtered)

Arociot-124S

BM iM-mi-MmsectMMMiz iiili|iiililiiiliiliiiii

- - l i

liJii -rilSiiiiiil

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii l-l il shy shy -

ilJi|i i-sectsectMBsect i

-

j 0 lt7) iOjCT)

20 (7)

Oi014 (7)

001 (7)

0014 CD

immmmB WMi^MampMi

00IM5

MM--zMshyi bulll l i l i |iloi

^

-bull-iigtM

WsectM0-amp 57

nzzmmm mlBWM

18

V

Aroclof-1248 (ghit-filteRd) 4 4 shy shy shy - 20 (7) 0014 CT) 00045 810 57 18 F

Phaie I RI umpling conducted in May 1988 Phaae II RI lampling conducted in April 1989

NC bull No criteria cxitta for thia compound

(1) Inaufficient Data to Develop Criteria Value preaented ia LOEL shy Loweit Obierved Effect Level

(2) Value preaented for carelnogeiia ia the 10-5 level

(3) Value preaented ia for dichloroethenea

(4) Value preieoted ia for trana 12-dichloroetliene

(5) pH dependent criteria (78 pH uted)

(6) Value preaented ia for chlorinated benzenea

(7) Value presented ia for total PCBa

(8) Effluent DiKhaige Limit based upon an effluent discharge of 5 gpm to the Neponset River during the 7-day low flow lOyr recurrence (2O20gpm)

USGS Pleasant Street Oauging Station on the Neponset River

(9) Dilution factor =[(5gpm+2020gpm)5gpml= 405

(lO)Concentration exceeds effluent discharge limit contaminant must be removed by Groundwater Treatment Plant before discharge to surface water [D=DAILY MAX A=AVG MONTHLY F=FISH]

-

-

-

- - -

-

-

-

-

-

o n o TABLE 1-3 COMPARISON OF METAL CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER WFTH EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull bull bull bull gt gt bull gt bull bull bull bull bull - bull bulliii|vO|| iS iggJMLnei i iaD s-UNFILTEREDgssHis M-B33nsRmmMMM D A I L Y iiiiiiiiiiiiiAVGiiiiii |i mmmmMmmm Xy lira^li P H A S E I WtiiMM liwiAiiiii iiiiimiii iii-pHiwiiliiiii WampMM P H A S E I ilii iiwgiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiili|i| iiii iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii M A X I M U M iiiiipifriiii^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiiifiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

555^gt5^5V555^^^^ i i i ilaquoiij S U R F A C E m m m Wtm^itM B E D R O C K bull bull gt f t bullbullbull B E D R O C K iiiFRiiliiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiijsiiiiiriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii|iiiiiiliiiiiiii E F F L U E N T E F F L U E N T E F F L U E N T iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii wmmm |||ii||li| |i IliAiiiiil WliampiMM liiiiltiilii^isiiii liiiiifctAXliii iiiAiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^i^iibhreiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii liiiiiii iiHiiiiiiiiiiiiii- D I S C H A R O E D I S C H A R O E D I S C H A R O E iiiii imm^mi mmmn WmMm WBrnB

PARAlt4ETER W iMmm iiiiiiiii iiitjiiiii Wi^MMM iiii iiiiiiiiilii iiiaraquoliiii W-imMMi iiiiiiaiiiii mMmmmm iCSiiMAiiiiii O O N S U M P iiiiiiiVEitiiii liiiiisyifeEiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiitiiiiL iiii cii^i iiiiiifl|5iili iiiiiiili (UOW iiiiiiii (oon) iiiiult3piili (UOL) lzMcii0m (UGL) iipiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|^(Siliiiiiiiiii|iiiiii (UOL) (2) (UOL) (6)C7) (IKJL) (6)C7) (UOn) (6) C7) i^iipi

M E T A L S

A h m i n u m 154000 390000 119 352 12500 43900 74 77 NA NA NA NC NC NC

i^poundi1i liiiiiii^iii iiiiiiiPi iii|ilsi iliiiJsiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iii-iili liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii-raquoiiiilti)ij^i JiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiW)i(5i iiiiiiiiiiiiii6Pigtiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiS5iraquoii)i iiiiiitiraquo50 iiiiii3f laquoltraquollishyJ^Sn^iii-illii iiiillifil II |-Iilliiii WlampMi liiliii-ii iiiiiiiifiiiiiili 22a iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii^iiiliiiiiii iiiiiiiiN iiiiiiliiiiiiiii iii-iiiiiiiiiii ifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii fiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiii i iiiiii i j ^ i iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiip iiiiiiiii Bar ium 690 1640 67 2laquo9 53 147 97 19 NC NC NC (5) NC NC NC Beryll ium 18 32 130 (1) 53 (1) 131 52650 2147 531

|^i^ii|litx i s bull liillliSi ZZZZZZZZZ i|||i-^i - iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiii --i|yiiiWi iiiifslt^laquoiiiiiii3jiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiltfcjii i(3yiiiliii iiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiJC iiii-S iifiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMi iiiiiiilii154- bull i i - i i6laquo856i mzMkm iiiiiiiliiii ii|iijji||ii|||i 9lMMi MmiMi zZ^ mm iiiiiiiifi li^iiiiiiiiiraquoliiii 33100 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilMi^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiieiiiii^iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Pi iiiiiiiiiiiiNti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij^i

Chromium 206 526 1 8 18 34 104 16 W 11 (4) 3200 (4) 648b 4455 1296000 -Cobal t 113 295 19 22 36 40 NC NC NC NC NC NC

fMgtimi-^ztm zmisectmi iMiMM wmmi M^iiiiampii iiJiiM 189 iiiiiiiiiisiiiiiilaquo3iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifii iiiiiiiiiiiliiiii^-iiiii isiiiiiiiiiiisiiiii CJiiiiiijiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiStCiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM bullsiiiii iiiiiiili5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiigtireii iiiiiiii-shy bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull iiiiiiliiiiiiWiii bull bull laquo raquo - iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiilifii iiiiiiiiiiii iii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii l i i i i i i i i i i^ i l l l i s i i iiiiii i-iiiiiiiSiiiiiiisiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|fltii- 405000 iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiwii iiiiAiiishymBmmm imampmm WmMM Wimm iiiiillili iiiiiiiiliiiiiii

Lead 43 i t3 21 168 l i 37 30 168 14 (3) 054 p) NC 5670 219 NC

Magnes ium 42400 148000 3950 8990 8630 21100 5040 11200 NC NC NC NC NC NC

iiititlj^iusibiii^j iilllJii^ -M-W^M iiiiiiii^^i^ ii-|7laquo- L5W iiiiiiiiiiiiiilliiifii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiltiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii ii5iiiiiiie iiiiiiiiiiii bullbull bull l t raquo iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNC iiiiiiii isci i i i | | i i i | | i p i i II0M^I iiiiiliiiiiiiiilii WM^MmM ilillilflil i | | | l il |o| | l i i l i P liiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiip8iii bullbull ( U si i l i l i iiiiii- iiii-li|i5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiipiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiii -i- o-iil bull iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiii laquoiii

Nicke l 164 452 64 104 643 (3) 33 (3) 3800 260415 13365 1539000 -Potaaaium 13100 33400 2800 5420 4580 9790 3280 5780 NC NC NC NC NC NC

i|i3laquo|i |s||i ilsectiampim illii|li MmMm iiliil|^i7ii il-lii^|iiraquoiii- (iiltii iliiiiiii^iiiiili^^^ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiii2iwiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiliis lt 6800 ii5iiiiiiiyilaquoJpll i iiiiiiiiiifiiil ^iiilOWi iiiiiii3^lHWraquoi iiiiii--i

|i|||ii Iliii illl|iillSI |illliSl^| illillaquoii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiliiltiii laquo raquo iiiiiiiiiiiii||i||| iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii|i|ltoigttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiliiiiilii iiiiiiiiiiiii bull^bull i l iNc| i-|iiiii -i-iii ii gti5 i iiiiiiiili^^ iiiiiiiiiiii Oiiiiiiii|i bulliiiiiiii Sodium 14100 28900 12500 26raquo00 16320 33200 16300 68000 N c NC NC Nc NC Nc Thal l ium 10 10 58 10 1400 (1) 40 (1) 32 567000 16200 1296

igtPiiiilli MmmmiM liilililil iiliiiiisii iii|ii| bulliiii iiiiiisiiilii iiiiiiiiiiiii|i ii^|i iiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii iiiiiiii ii^iliiiiiiiNiilliiiiiiiji- bulli|iiiiiflaquoSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii|lNe-|i-ii iiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Nc iiiiiii liiNCii iiiiiii iiiiiiiilifiei iiiii iiiiiii iilaquo|||il| mmmmi m m m i M iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisil i iiiisiiiiilllii iiiiliiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiitii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiii iiiiiiliili-|s4ii iiilliiiiiiii ssiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii^^iii-iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii 13365 iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiip^ P b a i e I RI sampling conducted in M a y 1988 Phase II RI samplmg conducted in Apri l 1989

N C = N o cri teria exiata for th is compotmd

N A = N o t Available

(1) Insufficient Data to Develop Cri ter ia Value presented is L O E L - Lowest Observed Effect Level

(2) Value preaented for careinogena ia the 10-S level

(3) Hardness dependent c r i te r ia (25 mgA C A C 0 3 uaed)

(4) Value presented is for Ihe m o r e toxic hexavalent form

(5) Value presented is proposed (more conservat ive)

(6) Effluent Discharge L imi t dilution factor based upon an effluent discbarge of 5 gpm to the Neponse t River during the 7 - d a y low flow lOyr recurrence (2020gpm)

USOS Pleasant Street Oaug ing atation on the Neponset River

(7) Dilut ion factor =[(Sgpm+2020gpm)Sgpm]= 405

(lO)Concentration exceeds effluent discharge limit contaminant must be removed by Groundwate r Treatment Plant before discharge to Ihe Neponset River [ D = D A I L Y M A X A = A V O M O N T H L Y F=FISH]

c and 1-3 for effluent (Uscharge limits for organic and inorganic compounds An acute toxicity

test showed that no toxic effect was observed for the interim treatment discharge

114 Conclusions

Based on the results of the Phase I bench scale treatabUity study the combined unit

operations of fUtration foUowed by carbon adsorption were effective in treating the

contaminated groundwater coUected during the pumping tests for temporary discharge to the

Neponset River A sample of the discharge was coUected during the groundwater treatment

and it was found to contain less than the quantitation limit of 05 xgL of PCB The metals

concentrations were aU determined to be below the discharge criteria A sample was also

coUected and submitted for an acute toxicity determination The resuUs showed that no toxic

effect was observed The bench scale treatability results and the on-line discharge analyses

demonstrate that the filtration and carbon adsorption unit operations were effective temporary

treatment techniques

^ 12 FULL SCALE STUDY

A groundwater treatability study was conducted to evaluate the performance of four different

treatment processes on contaminated groundwater obtained from the Norwood PCB site The

contaminants present in the groundwater were determined during previous studies conducted

in May 1988 and AprU 1989 by EBASCO Chapter 1 of the Final FeasibUity Study

(EBASCO 1989c) contains an overview of the results obtained during these investigations

Based on the resuUs of the May 1988 and AprU 1989 field investigations EPA concluded

that the overburden and bedrock aquifers beneath the site were contaminated with

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and volatUe and semivolatile organic compounds (VOCs

and SVOCs) It was determined that surficial and subsurface soUs dredge pUes of sediments

taken from Meadow Brook sediments in Meadow Brook and sediments in the drainage

system of the buUding operated by Grant Gear were the sources of the contamination In

r

c September 1989 EPA released the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Norwood PCB site In

the ROD EPA directed that groundwater be treated with a system including activated carbon

air stripping with vapor controls and precipitationfiltration iEPA also directed that

treatability studies or pUot studies be conducted to aid in the overaU design of the system

In accordance with the ROD a bench scale treatabUity study was conducted at the ENSECO

Laboratory Facility in Cambridge Massachusetts by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel between

January 14 and February 16 1992 This report presents a description of the work

completed resuUs and conclusions of the study

121 Objectives

The fuU-scale groundwater treatability study was conducted to determine if treatment

consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping and carbon adsorption would effectively

remove the contamination present in the groundwater at the Norwood PCB site to appUcable

standards Information on the percent reduction of organic and inorganic compounds in the

groundwater volume type of residual and byproducts produced by each component were

also investigated A schematic detailing the treatability study and the sampling and analysis

conducted is presented in Figure 1-1

122 Description of Work

The treatability study was performed in accordance with Pre-Design Work Plan 3 and the

QuaUty Assurance Project Plan for the Phase n Bench-Scale TreatabiUty Study (Work

Plan 3)

Groundwater samples were coUected from the Norwood PCB site for use in this

investigation Interim sampling was performed on effluent streams generated from each

bench-scale process for analysis according to Table 1-4 Influent and final effluent samples

generated during the groundwater treatabiUty were coUected and analyzed through the CLP

^

o JAR TESTING SAMPLE ID

o

POLYMER TESTING

RAW GROUNDWATER

VOL 1 SVOL I p PCB f ^ ^ METALS

mdash SST

T

T

T

SS - Choose Polymer T ar)d Dose Estimate pH pf i After Coagu lant

Jar Test 1 PH10 bull

Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

Ume wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

Jar Test 2 pH9

Jar Test 3 pH8

bull

Lime w C oag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

JT1 -1 shy

j r i -2 shy

JT1 -3 shy

JTI-4

j r 2 - 1

JT2-2 shy

JT2-3

j r2-4 bull

JT3-1 shy

JT3-2shy

JT3-3 bull

JT3-4 shy

HLTRATION TESTING

RIter Paper 1 - SS T Time mdash |

RIter Paper 2 - SS T Time-

Rlter Paper 3 - SS T Time -

CtHXise Filter Paper or Particle Retention Size

Sample Well Using Bailer

VOL SVOL PCB CLPMETALS (PPF-1)

Precipitate and Filter Using Optimized Polymer pH Coagulant and Filter

lt

AIR STRIPPING

AJrWater Ratio 1

AirWater Ratio 2

AirWater Ratio3 ~

VOLmdash1

-VOL

-VOLmdash

SAMPLE ID CARBON ADSORPTION (All by CLP)

Carbon mdashVOL SVOL Metals AC-1

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-2

Dose 3 mdash ^ deg shy reg ^ deg ^^reg ^ ^

Carbon

Dose1

Carbon Dose 2

Cartwn

Dose 4

Cartxjn Dose 1

Carbon Dose2~

Carbon Dose 3

Carbon Dose4~

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-4

-VOL C-1

-VOL SVOL Metals C-2

-VOL PCB C-3

bull VOL SVOL Chronic Toxicity C-4

Jar Test 4 pH 10 Dup

bull

- Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

Jr4-1

JT4-2

JT4-3

Carbon Doses

Cartxgtn Dose 6

-VOL SVOL PCB

mdash VOL Metals

C-5

C-6

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals JT4-4

VOL = Volatile Organics SVOL = Semi Volatile Organics

Carbon Dose 7

mdashVOL SVOL C-7

SS = Suspended Solids

NaOH-MNAL JT5-1 T = Turbidity

Jar Test 5 pHIO

NaOH - wPolymer - MN AL

NaOH wPoly wCoag RItered - MN AL

JT5-2

JT5-3

NaOH wPdy wCoag Aerated andRItered - MN AL

JT5-4

^ NaOH wPdy wCoag PermanganateRItered - MN M

JT5-5

J O Special FIGURE 1-1 TREATABILITY STUDY

Optimize pH Decide Ume or NaOH

SAMPUNG AND ANALYSIS SCHEMATIC

Compare Polymer vs Coagulant

(J DF222658HW

c

c

TABLE 1-4 TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Number Bench Scale Process

Groundwater Treatability Study

Initial Groundwater

Preliminary Polymer Testing

Precipitation Supemant

FUtration Effluent

Metals Sludge Precipitated and FUtered Effluent with Groundwater CoUected with BaUer

Air Stripping Effluent

Air Stripped Carbon Adsorption Effluent

Non Air Stripped Carbon Effluent

Sludge Sample

Rock Washing Study

Initial Rocks Initial Gravel from roof Stone from Cap Washed Rocks Washed Stones

Samples

1

1 1

16 16 16

3 3

1 2 2 2

3

4 4 2 2

7 4 2 2 1 1

3 5 6 3 1

Analysis

VolatUes SemivolatUes PCB Metals Suspended SoUds pH Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity Metals VolatUe Organics

Suspended SoUds TuAidity

PCB VolatUe Organics PCB SemivolatUe Organics

VolatUe Organics

SemivolatUe Organics VolatUe Organics Metals PCB

VolatUe Organics SemivolatUe Organics Metals PCB Chronic Toxicity PCBs Metals

PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB

Laboratory

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

c

c

c

system for volatUes semivolatUes PCBs and metals AU interim samples were analyzed at

ENSECO in Cambridge Massachusetts AU data was vaUdated by MampE according to the

QAPP

1221 Groundwater Sample CoUection Groundwater for this study was coUected from

weUs MW-IA and ME-8 as shown on Figure 1-2 iMW-lA was chosen as a sampling

location because it was determined to be one of the most contaminated weUs on-site based

on previous investigations During the course of the treatabiUty study a decision was made

to obtain samples from ME-8 because results of the most recent sampling effort conducted by

ICF indicated that groundwater from this weU contained approximately 200 xgL vinyl

chloride whereas groundwater from MW-IA no longer contained any quantifiable amount

Removal of vinyl chloride by aeration needed to be demonstrated during this investigation

because vinyl chloride is not effectively removed by carbon adsorption

Groundwater samples were obtained on four separate occasions during the study as shown in

Table 1-5 On each occasion the groundwater was coUected in accordance with the Field

Sampling Plan Three weU volumes of water were purged from the weU using a centrifiigal

pump before any samples were coUected The pH temperature and conductivity of the

purge water was measured after each weU volume untU the measured values differed by less

than 10 for three consecutive samples to ensure the sample drawn was representative of the

water in the aquifer Samples for the metals precipitation and filtration study were coUected

using a centrifugal pump Samples for the air stripping and carbon adsorption study were

coUected with a teflon baUer to minimize aeration and possible loss of volatUes during

sample coUection

The samples were coUected in one gallon amber glass bottles and stored at 4degC Each

sample bottle wasfiUed to exclude a headspace in the bottle

e 10

200 200

SCALE IN FEET

D CAP ROCK SAMPLE LOCATION

bull WELLS

nOURE 1-2 GROUNDWATER AND TRENCH AND CAP

ROCK SAMPLING LOCATIONS

11

E T C A L F a EDDY

c TABLE 1-5 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING SUMMARY

Mode of Date WeU Amount Sampled pH Temp degC Conductivity SampUng

11392 MW-IA 10 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm pump

12792 MW-IA 16 gaUons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20392 MW-IA 16 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20592 ME-8 2 gallons 64 8deg 230 umhocm baUer

1222 Precipitation Testing

General Chemical precipitation for the removal of metals was evaluated at three pH values

and three polymer dosages to determine the effectiveness of the treatment A preliminary

evaluation of different coagulants and polymers was conducted at three pH values by

r Metcalf amp Eddy personnel and a leading polymer vendor to determine which chemicals could

potentiaUy be used to precipitate groundwater Based on the results from the preliminary

evaluation jar tests were conducted by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel to aid in the determination

of the chemical dosages required to optimize the effectiveness of precipitation

Polymer and Coagulent Testing Polymer testing was performed by Metcalf amp Eddy and a

leading polymer vendor at the ENSECO laboratory faciUty in Cambridge Massachusetts

The effectiveness of anionic cationic and nonioiuc polymer was evaluated at three pH

values The best polymer was determined to be Drewfloc 2270 a low charge anionic high

molecular weight polymer This polymer was used in jar tests 1 through 5 The best

coagulent was determined to be Charge Pack 12 (CP-12) a higher charge cationic low

molecular weight coagulent The CP-12 coagulent was used in jar tests 1 through 5

described under jar testing

12 c

InitiaUy the effects of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was investigated Tests c were conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 with sodium hydroxide which had the best

settling characteristics based on visual observation and turbidity measurement Each polymer

was then tested at pH = 100 to evaluate Us effectiveness under optimum pH conditions

A formula of polymer and coagulant addition was developed based on visual observations

suspended soUds and turbidity analyses performed on each sample generated during the

investigation The anionic polymer effectively flocculated the existing smaU suspended

particles and the addkion of cationic coagulant removed iron and color when the pH was

raised to 100

Jar Testing Five jar tests were performed using the polymer and coagulants determined to

be effective during preliminary testing Jar tests 1 and 4 were conducted as dupUcates at

ph 10 Jar test 2 was conducted at pH 9 jar test 3 was conducted at pH 8 and jar test 5 was

conducted at pH 10 On each occasion prior to beginning the jar test the raw groundwater

was brought tol5deg-17degCina warm water bath The temperature was held constant to c eliminate the effects of temperature on reaction rates and solubUity

The foUowing is a description of activities conducted during the jar tests fti through 4 See

Figure 1-1 for details Four samples were evaluated during each jar test For each jar test

four 15 Uter beakers were fiUed with 1 Uter of raw groundwater The beakers were placed

on the stirrer platform and the paddles were lowered into the sample The jar stirrer was

operated at 80 revolutions per minute (rpm) The pH was then adjusted to the desired value

(pH = 10 9 8 10 for Tests 1 2 3 4) with a lime slurry in two samples and with a

sodium hydroxide solution (25) in the remaining two samples Lime was added to

investigate its effects on the precipitate and to evaluate its effectiveness in pH adjustment

The cationic coagulant was then added to each sample untU the concentration in solution was

30 mgL The solution was stirred at 80 rpm for 2 minutes to ensure complete mixing The

polymer was then added to one sample pH adjusted with sodium hydroxide and one sample

pH adjusted with lime Mixing continued for two minutes Next the solution was stirred

13 c

slowly orflocculated for five minutes at 20 rpm FinaUy the solutions were aUowed to

c settle for 10 minutes Visual observations were recorded and samples were submitted for

suspended soUds turbidity and metals analyses

Jar test 5 was performed to assess the removal of manganese and aluminum by preaeration

and permanganate additions (see Figure 1-1) Because no significant benefit was observed in

the previous tests when lime was used instead of sodium hydroxide sodium hydroxide was

used to adjust the pH in aU four samples to a pH of 100 in jar test 5 Only sodium

hydroxide was added to the groundwater in the first jar to determine the removal of

manganese and aluminum attributable to the formation of an insoluble salt at high pH

Sodium hydroxide and polymer were added to the second jar to evaluate the effectiveness of

the polymer Sodium hydroxide polymer and coagulant were added to sample 4 The

supemate from sample 4 was then fUtered This was performed to determine if the required

removal efficiencies could be achieved by chemical precipitation and filtration

Permanganate was added to sample 3 in addition to sodium hydroxide coagulant and

polymer to determine if the manganese and aluminum present could be chemicaUy oxidized c to a less soluble state which would enhance the efficiency of fUtration The supemate was

then siphoned off using clean tygon tubing and a syringe into the sample containers

Samples were submitted for metals suspended soUds and turbidity as illustrated on

Figure 1-1

1223 Filtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was perfonned to determine the

optimum pore size of filter media that could effectively remove the suspended soUds in the

precipitated groundwater The determination of the removal efficiency for each filter was

based on the concentration of suspended soUds and turbidity of the filtered water The time

required to filter the groundwater was also evaluated

Prior to filtration the metals in the groundwater were precipitated and coagulent and polymer

were added using the optimum conditions developed during the precipitation study The

optimum conditions consisted of pH adjustment to 10 with sodium hydroxide addition of

14 c

coagulent CP-12 to a concentration of one percent and addition of Drewfloc 2270 polymer to

c a concentration of 10 mgl Three grades (10 xm 5 xm and 1 xm pore sizes) of filter

paper were used with a Buchner ftmnel to filter aUquots of the precipitated groundwater

Samples of the filtered water were submitted to ENSECO for suspended soUds and turbidity

analysis

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge was coUected during the treatability study The

sludge sample was submitted to the CLP system for PCB and metals analysis so that a

characterization of the sludge could be made and disposal options could be evaluated

1224 Air Stripping Testing Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at three

different air to water ratios to determine the most effective stripping ratio To ensure that

worst case volatUe organic compound concentrations were present in the samples for this

study some modifications were made in how the sample was coUected and treated First

the groundwater was coUected with a baUer to prevent the loss of volatUes AdditionaUy the

water was fUtered under positive pressure foUowing the precipitation step to minimize the c loss of volatUes that would result if the water was filtered using a vacuum pump

An aquarium pump tygon tubing and aeration stone with a glass-fiber fUter cartridge was

used to aerate 1-Uter aUquots of precipitated and filtered groundwater The aeration flow

rate was caUbrated by filling a graduated cylinder with air that had been filled with tap water

and inverted in a water bath The air was diffused at 375 missec into 1-Uter aUquots of

groundwater and the time measured as iUustrated in Table 1-6 The aerated groundwater was

submitted to ENSECO for volatUe organics analysis

1225 Carbon Adsorption Testing The effectiveness of activated carbon for the removal

of organic compounds in the groundwater at the site was evaluated The carbon used was

the powdered activated 325 mesh carbon suppUed by Calgon Corporation The groundwater

samples used for this investigation were obtained and filtered as described in the air stripping

15 c

c

c

TABLE 1-6 AERATION TEST OPERATIONS

Air to Water Ratio Volume Volume of by Volume of Water Air Reqd Min of Aeration

251 1000 ml 25000 ml 111 501 1000 ml 50000 ml 222 751 1000 ml 75000 ml 333

section of this report to minimize the loss of volatUes A total of twelve samples were mn

during this investigation The necessity of air stripping was investigated by comparing the

resuUs from four samples that were air stripped to seven samples that were treated identicaUy

with the exception of air stripping AU samples for the air stripping comparison went

through the precipitation filtration and carbon adsorption processes AdditionaUy one

sample was prepared with no carbon added to serve as an untreated sample The samples are

summarized in Table 1-7 Each groundwater sample was prepared and mixed with a

predetermined dose of Calgon powdered 325 mesh activated carbon and placed m an open

Erlenmyer flask on a shaker table for a two-hour time period at 180 rpm A rotary shaker

table capable of accommodating twelve (12)-1000 ml Erlenmyer flasks was used Effluent

was fUtered with a barrel filter using a glass-fiber pre-fUter and a Whatman 45 micron

membrane The effluent clear and odorless in aU cases was added to sample containers

preserved and packed for shipment to CLP laboratories Since the shaker table could

accommodate 12 flasks a total of approximately 4 gaUons of effluent was generated during

each mn Several mns were performed to generate adequate quantities of sample for

analysis accordmg to Table 1-7 Groundwater was simUarly prepared for submittal to

Aquatec Lab in Burlington Vermont for chronic toxicity testing Three (3) shipments of

approximately 2 gaUons each were made

r 16

C) o o TABLE 1-7 CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation Filtration Aeration amp Carbon

AC-1 05 V SV MET 3400 3 1067 054 AC-2 20 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 22 AC-3 50 V SV MET 3400 3 1133 57 AC-4 100 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 110 AC-5 Trip Blank 0 V

Precipitation Filtration amp Carbon

C-0 0 V 500 1 500 0

C-1 05 V SV MET 3200 3 1067 053

c-2 10 V PCB 2200 2 1100 11

C-3 20 V SV CT 29000 24 1250 25

C-4 50 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 55

C-17 70 V MET 1200 1 1200 70

C-18 100 V SV 2200 2 1100 110

C-13 Treatability Blank 0 V PCB 2200 0 0 0

C-20 Trip Blank 0 V 0

C-10 Duplicate of C-1 05 SV 2000 2 1000 05

C-1 05 (MSMSD) 500 1 500 025

C-11 Duplicate of C-1 05 MET 1000 1 1000 05

C-20 Duplicate of C-2 10 V PCB (MSMSD)

4400 4 1100 11

C-16 Duplicate of C-4 50 PCB 2000 2 1000 50

C-6 0 PCB 2000 2 1000 0

17

o o n TABLE 1-7 (Continued) CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation amp Filtration

PPF-1 V SV MET PCB 2000 2 1000 0

Sludge

Sludge-1 0 MET PCB 0

V = VolatUe organics SV = Semivolatile organics MET = Metals PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls CT = Chronic toxicity MSMSD = Matrix spikematrix spike dup D = DupUcate TB = Trip blank PPF = Precipitated and pressure filtered

(to minimize volatUes loss as opposed to vacuum filtration)

18

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

1-16 Comparison of Inorganic FuU-Scale Treatability Study ResuUs to MCLs and Discharge Levels - Discharge to c the Neponset River 31

1-17 Comparison of Inorganic FuU-Scale Treatability Study ResuUs to MCLs and Discharge Levels shyDischarge to Meadow Brook 32

1-18 Comparison of Organic FuU-Scale Treatability Study ResuUs to MCLs and Discharge Levels shyDischarge to the Neponset River 33

1-19 Comparison of Organic FuU-Scale Treatability Study Results to MCLs and Discharge Levels shyDischarge to Meadow Brook 34

2-1 Trench Rock Washing Results 40

2-2 Interim Remedial Cap Rock Analytical Results 42

( w

IV c

Section One

10 GROUNDWATER

11 INTERIM STUDY

111 Introduction and Objectives

Performance of the pumping test phase of the hydrogeologic investigation at the Norwood

PCB site resulted in the accumulation of approximately 25000 gaUons of contaminated

groundwater In order to properly dispose of this contaminated groundwater a Phase I bench

scale treatabUity study was undertaken The objective of the treatabiUty study was to

determine whether two unit operations filtration and carbon adsorption would be effective

in treating the contaminated groundwater so that it could be discharged to the Neponset River

under a temporary permit without any adverse effects to human health or the environment

112 Description of Work

c On August 28 1991 a sample of groundwater was coUected from the Norwood PCB site for

use in the Phase I bench-scale treatability study The sample was coUected from WeU

MW-IA one of the most contaminated weUs at the Norwood PCB site The Phase I

groundwater treatability study was conducted and sample analysis performed during

September 1991 at Hydrosample Laboratory in Northboro Massachusetts

The groundwater sampling and the generation of the treatability samples was conducted in

accordance with the Interim Pre-Design Work Plan No 3 Phase I for the temporary

groundwater treatment plant Three different pore size or particle retention grades of fUter

paper were evaluated for filtration rate and PCB removal The coarse Whatman filter had a

pore size of 10 microns the medium had a pore size of 5 microns and the fine had a pore

size of 1 micron These sizes were chosen because they are the smaUest commerciaUy

avaUable sizes The filtration unit operation was evaluated both as the only treatment

technique and as the initial operation in a filtration carbon adsorption treatment scheme

1 c

c

c

For an evaluation of the carbon adsorption unit operation samples of the three fUtrates were

percolated through a 1 glass column charged with Calgon brand activated carbon Calgons

powdered activated 325 mesh carbon was recommended by Calgon for use in the bench-

scale studies because it decreases the contact time required for adsorption and can be filtered

out of the groundwater with a 045 micron pore size filter Each fUtrate was subjected to the

same carbon treatment The flow rate through the carbon column was adjusted to simulate

the fuU scale onsite carbon adsorption flow rate

113 Results

The results of the Phase I treatability study showed that PCBs the contaminants of greatest

concem were not removed by the filtration unit operation when it was employed as the only

treatment technique This indicates that the PCBs were dissolved or adhered to suspended

material finer than the smaUest commerciaUy avaUable filter pore size and that filtration

alone carmot remove PCBs to the cleanup level Activated carbon is necessary to achieve

PCB cleanup levels

The PCB results from the filtered carbon adsorbed samples indicated that the carbon

removed aU of the PCBs to a concentration of less than 05 xgL The analytical data was

vaUdated using the Data QuaUty Objective (DQO) Level HI criteria outlined in the

Groundwater Bench-Scale Phase I treatability Study QuaUty Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)

All of the analytical data was determined to be vaUd The PCB analytical resuUs are

presented in Table 1-1

One sample of the treated groundwater discharge from the interim treatment operation was

coUected on November 25 1991 The sample was analyzed and found to contain less than

050 jugL PCBs This sample was also analyzed for the twenty three Target Analyte List

(TAL) metals All of the metals concentrations were below the discharge limits calculated

based on AWQC and the flow rate of the discharge and the Neponset River See Tables 1-2

c

c

c

TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF PCB RESULTS FOR PHASE I TREATABILITY SAMPLES

Aroclor 1254 Surrogate Recoveries Concentration xgL TCMX DBC

Initial Sample 48 J 26 93 (Settled Decanted)

Coarse FUtered 63 J 57 102

Coarse FUtered DupUcate 79 140 105

Medium FUtered 59 61 108

Fine FUtered 52 78 97

Coarse FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 75 105

Medium FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 72 92

Fine FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 101

Method Blank 050 UJ 58

Pump Equipment Blank 050 UJ 36 110

TCMX = 2 4 5 6 tetrachlorometaxylene CLP 390 SOW Advisory Recovery Range 60 shy150

DBC = Dibutylchlorendate CLP 288 SOW Advisory Recovery Range 24-154

A non-PCB positive interfering compound coeluted with the DBC surrogate in the method blank therefore the surrogate recovery could not be quantitated

Aroclors 1221 1232 1242 1248 and 1260 were nondetected (050 U) in aU samples

Coarse FUter 10 micron pore size Medium FUter 5 micron pore size Fine FUter 1 micron pore size

c

o C) o TABLE 1-2 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER WITH EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

bull v - o x - - - - - - - - bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - - bull bull bull

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull gt bull bull bull bull gt bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull o gt pMWmmmXiiizz-mm^ 4SoSiSSiyS iSs DAILY - AVQ ^bull sectMMMsectMM mM i^i^^^^

W^MM^0 i ^^ ^ i ^ ^ ) ) ^ ^ ^ ^

liffiSaiArtiMifiig wampsectii^i9MMzWMM^lt

i 0 t M B W ^ SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE

-yio|ijMi i|5|laquoiilifc^ li^Oimim

PHASEn PHASE I PHASE

SURFACE BEDROCK BEDROCK

SjiA3tliilAM|li-^ isiowfciili^rBo^

(van) (uan) (uou

PHASEE

BEDROCK

fuow

iiHiisii BEDROCK

iiiiiiiiiixiii ixc ilfeiiili f-iO(3Msect

Wyt(Bm m^mmM miimmiM camamm WmM-M

|ii|iiiU-S |JipSEsiit||l ^ ^

Mi(iiteiii iciiiiitiii f-Wi^WM

ilii^y^iii illi^i^liliiiSl-liN lGipilaquooiraquoi|i|ii| ^^^ljMm$m-

MAXIMUM

EFFLUENT

DISCHARGE

bull^ bull bull L E V E L bullbullbull

(U6L) (8gt(gt)

MONTHLY

EFFLUENT

DISCHAROE

bull iLEVEL bullbull

(tlOLi (8)(9)

bull||yensi|| W0fW^iz

DISCHAROE

sectBlWW$W ( U a U (8)(9)

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull

iiil iW^

VOLATILE OROANICS

111-TricUoiocthuie 3 3 - - NC NC 170000 NC NC 68850000

M^iM^l ia i t i^^ W MMf ^ ^ i ^ M

Vinyl Chloride

mMWMimMilBMMM iil|||i||i||i|||||

14 14 73

SSi5i5

W S X i i m S M 120 23 6S 110

bull -

bull bull T

no

Wfimmim ISiMBB

NC

llliNGSM iiiipltiiii

NC

bulliiSfi4i|ii-

li PIiAlio|jifshy-3250

mimpmamp wwrnmim-NC

ampampllz-^f^C

Wwyen WM NC

170100

bull bull bull bull shy bull ^ raquo - S 5 lt gt

2126250

12-Dieliloroethene (toUl) 77 300 199 560 44 68 43 no 11600 (13) NC 1400000 (4) 4698000 NC 567000000

|||iiSi^i||laquo|||ii^^^^^^^^

Xylenei (total)

kz^z23i(iwMitiMM^^ W0$0Tisectsectg^^

6 6 shy

|isii7Pois

WlampMlMampW0 - shy shy shy

i-wip

-

z4smmm lmm0(M

NC

sSiiiraquolii(i)l iilltlaquoili

NC

i--iii ii -^lli||Piiiii

NC

ioisiaiiiSipop lsectfiMm

NC

i-Mti969M)

i - zF ^M SC

372ib0

$$laquo43

NC

bullWz-i

SEMIVOLATILES

23S-Trichioioi)beaol 10 10 - - NC NC NC NC NC NC

j|NiiwUfl|ropw^^

13-Dictiloiobeiizeiie

sectMimiMmm^ i|il||||iii|i||i

4 4 shy

i-siJ(t| ii|i WSMWiMMMiWMMM^

-

WMsect M WBWWrshy-

MiMxim- $MM^Mz

NO

m-z^mmi m^msmm NC

IM---iiiMMM WzMW Sk

2600

|Siii laquowq zz^Wlt^^

NC

bullMz-zziMii WzlMM

NC

kiMAz-iMampi WmtW^

1053000

14-Dichlorobenzeiie 14 14 48 67 shy shy shy - NC NC 2600 NC NC 1053000

| i i | l i t j | i i | i | ^

ii|ii|llllilill^ bullimMmMMiiMWMM ghif^m^MmMmiM^

iSmMMyMMsectsectMfziM^ i||||i|i |i|j|||^

bulliMMiiM ^zZ^ZzZZZZ^

^ --zllMMmd |sii|i|ii|

- ISSiiii lls-^iiil

i^iMM^i-iM wiiiW^Sz

iliiO-ii i l- iif-iiiii

WM--z ampiM fampMM

f bull iSilwiobtti

|i|3jl|i|

P C B I

Aioclor-1254 34 180 26 89 64 8 24 27 20 fT) 0014 CT) 00045 810 57 18 AF

secti^^MMMampMM^^ Aroclor-1254 (paper-filtered)

Arociot-124S

BM iM-mi-MmsectMMMiz iiili|iiililiiiliiliiiii

- - l i

liJii -rilSiiiiiil

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii l-l il shy shy -

ilJi|i i-sectsectMBsect i

-

j 0 lt7) iOjCT)

20 (7)

Oi014 (7)

001 (7)

0014 CD

immmmB WMi^MampMi

00IM5

MM--zMshyi bulll l i l i |iloi

^

-bull-iigtM

WsectM0-amp 57

nzzmmm mlBWM

18

V

Aroclof-1248 (ghit-filteRd) 4 4 shy shy shy - 20 (7) 0014 CT) 00045 810 57 18 F

Phaie I RI umpling conducted in May 1988 Phaae II RI lampling conducted in April 1989

NC bull No criteria cxitta for thia compound

(1) Inaufficient Data to Develop Criteria Value preaented ia LOEL shy Loweit Obierved Effect Level

(2) Value preaented for carelnogeiia ia the 10-5 level

(3) Value preaented ia for dichloroethenea

(4) Value preieoted ia for trana 12-dichloroetliene

(5) pH dependent criteria (78 pH uted)

(6) Value preaented ia for chlorinated benzenea

(7) Value presented ia for total PCBa

(8) Effluent DiKhaige Limit based upon an effluent discharge of 5 gpm to the Neponset River during the 7-day low flow lOyr recurrence (2O20gpm)

USGS Pleasant Street Oauging Station on the Neponset River

(9) Dilution factor =[(5gpm+2020gpm)5gpml= 405

(lO)Concentration exceeds effluent discharge limit contaminant must be removed by Groundwater Treatment Plant before discharge to surface water [D=DAILY MAX A=AVG MONTHLY F=FISH]

-

-

-

- - -

-

-

-

-

-

o n o TABLE 1-3 COMPARISON OF METAL CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER WFTH EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull bull bull bull gt gt bull gt bull bull bull bull bull - bull bulliii|vO|| iS iggJMLnei i iaD s-UNFILTEREDgssHis M-B33nsRmmMMM D A I L Y iiiiiiiiiiiiiAVGiiiiii |i mmmmMmmm Xy lira^li P H A S E I WtiiMM liwiAiiiii iiiiimiii iii-pHiwiiliiiii WampMM P H A S E I ilii iiwgiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiili|i| iiii iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii M A X I M U M iiiiipifriiii^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiiifiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

555^gt5^5V555^^^^ i i i ilaquoiij S U R F A C E m m m Wtm^itM B E D R O C K bull bull gt f t bullbullbull B E D R O C K iiiFRiiliiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiijsiiiiiriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii|iiiiiiliiiiiiii E F F L U E N T E F F L U E N T E F F L U E N T iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii wmmm |||ii||li| |i IliAiiiiil WliampiMM liiiiltiilii^isiiii liiiiifctAXliii iiiAiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^i^iibhreiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii liiiiiii iiHiiiiiiiiiiiiii- D I S C H A R O E D I S C H A R O E D I S C H A R O E iiiii imm^mi mmmn WmMm WBrnB

PARAlt4ETER W iMmm iiiiiiiii iiitjiiiii Wi^MMM iiii iiiiiiiiilii iiiaraquoliiii W-imMMi iiiiiiaiiiii mMmmmm iCSiiMAiiiiii O O N S U M P iiiiiiiVEitiiii liiiiisyifeEiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiitiiiiL iiii cii^i iiiiiifl|5iili iiiiiiili (UOW iiiiiiii (oon) iiiiult3piili (UOL) lzMcii0m (UGL) iipiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|^(Siliiiiiiiiii|iiiiii (UOL) (2) (UOL) (6)C7) (IKJL) (6)C7) (UOn) (6) C7) i^iipi

M E T A L S

A h m i n u m 154000 390000 119 352 12500 43900 74 77 NA NA NA NC NC NC

i^poundi1i liiiiiii^iii iiiiiiiPi iii|ilsi iliiiJsiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iii-iili liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii-raquoiiiilti)ij^i JiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiW)i(5i iiiiiiiiiiiiii6Pigtiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiS5iraquoii)i iiiiiitiraquo50 iiiiii3f laquoltraquollishyJ^Sn^iii-illii iiiillifil II |-Iilliiii WlampMi liiliii-ii iiiiiiiifiiiiiili 22a iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii^iiiliiiiiii iiiiiiiiN iiiiiiliiiiiiiii iii-iiiiiiiiiii ifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii fiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiii i iiiiii i j ^ i iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiip iiiiiiiii Bar ium 690 1640 67 2laquo9 53 147 97 19 NC NC NC (5) NC NC NC Beryll ium 18 32 130 (1) 53 (1) 131 52650 2147 531

|^i^ii|litx i s bull liillliSi ZZZZZZZZZ i|||i-^i - iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiii --i|yiiiWi iiiifslt^laquoiiiiiii3jiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiltfcjii i(3yiiiliii iiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiJC iiii-S iifiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMi iiiiiiilii154- bull i i - i i6laquo856i mzMkm iiiiiiiliiii ii|iijji||ii|||i 9lMMi MmiMi zZ^ mm iiiiiiiifi li^iiiiiiiiiraquoliiii 33100 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilMi^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiieiiiii^iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Pi iiiiiiiiiiiiNti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij^i

Chromium 206 526 1 8 18 34 104 16 W 11 (4) 3200 (4) 648b 4455 1296000 -Cobal t 113 295 19 22 36 40 NC NC NC NC NC NC

fMgtimi-^ztm zmisectmi iMiMM wmmi M^iiiiampii iiJiiM 189 iiiiiiiiiisiiiiiilaquo3iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifii iiiiiiiiiiiliiiii^-iiiii isiiiiiiiiiiisiiiii CJiiiiiijiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiStCiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM bullsiiiii iiiiiiili5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiigtireii iiiiiiii-shy bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull iiiiiiliiiiiiWiii bull bull laquo raquo - iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiilifii iiiiiiiiiiii iii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii l i i i i i i i i i i^ i l l l i s i i iiiiii i-iiiiiiiSiiiiiiisiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|fltii- 405000 iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiwii iiiiAiiishymBmmm imampmm WmMM Wimm iiiiillili iiiiiiiiliiiiiii

Lead 43 i t3 21 168 l i 37 30 168 14 (3) 054 p) NC 5670 219 NC

Magnes ium 42400 148000 3950 8990 8630 21100 5040 11200 NC NC NC NC NC NC

iiititlj^iusibiii^j iilllJii^ -M-W^M iiiiiiii^^i^ ii-|7laquo- L5W iiiiiiiiiiiiiilliiifii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiltiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii ii5iiiiiiie iiiiiiiiiiii bullbull bull l t raquo iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNC iiiiiiii isci i i i | | i i i | | i p i i II0M^I iiiiiliiiiiiiiilii WM^MmM ilillilflil i | | | l il |o| | l i i l i P liiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiip8iii bullbull ( U si i l i l i iiiiii- iiii-li|i5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiipiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiii -i- o-iil bull iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiii laquoiii

Nicke l 164 452 64 104 643 (3) 33 (3) 3800 260415 13365 1539000 -Potaaaium 13100 33400 2800 5420 4580 9790 3280 5780 NC NC NC NC NC NC

i|i3laquo|i |s||i ilsectiampim illii|li MmMm iiliil|^i7ii il-lii^|iiraquoiii- (iiltii iliiiiiii^iiiiili^^^ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiii2iwiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiliis lt 6800 ii5iiiiiiiyilaquoJpll i iiiiiiiiiifiiil ^iiilOWi iiiiiii3^lHWraquoi iiiiii--i

|i|||ii Iliii illl|iillSI |illliSl^| illillaquoii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiliiltiii laquo raquo iiiiiiiiiiiii||i||| iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii|i|ltoigttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiliiiiilii iiiiiiiiiiiii bull^bull i l iNc| i-|iiiii -i-iii ii gti5 i iiiiiiiili^^ iiiiiiiiiiii Oiiiiiiii|i bulliiiiiiii Sodium 14100 28900 12500 26raquo00 16320 33200 16300 68000 N c NC NC Nc NC Nc Thal l ium 10 10 58 10 1400 (1) 40 (1) 32 567000 16200 1296

igtPiiiilli MmmmiM liilililil iiliiiiisii iii|ii| bulliiii iiiiiisiiilii iiiiiiiiiiiii|i ii^|i iiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii iiiiiiii ii^iliiiiiiiNiilliiiiiiiji- bulli|iiiiiflaquoSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii|lNe-|i-ii iiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Nc iiiiiii liiNCii iiiiiii iiiiiiiilifiei iiiii iiiiiii iilaquo|||il| mmmmi m m m i M iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisil i iiiisiiiiilllii iiiiliiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiitii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiii iiiiiiliili-|s4ii iiilliiiiiiii ssiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii^^iii-iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii 13365 iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiip^ P b a i e I RI sampling conducted in M a y 1988 Phase II RI samplmg conducted in Apri l 1989

N C = N o cri teria exiata for th is compotmd

N A = N o t Available

(1) Insufficient Data to Develop Cri ter ia Value presented is L O E L - Lowest Observed Effect Level

(2) Value preaented for careinogena ia the 10-S level

(3) Hardness dependent c r i te r ia (25 mgA C A C 0 3 uaed)

(4) Value presented is for Ihe m o r e toxic hexavalent form

(5) Value presented is proposed (more conservat ive)

(6) Effluent Discharge L imi t dilution factor based upon an effluent discbarge of 5 gpm to the Neponse t River during the 7 - d a y low flow lOyr recurrence (2020gpm)

USOS Pleasant Street Oaug ing atation on the Neponset River

(7) Dilut ion factor =[(Sgpm+2020gpm)Sgpm]= 405

(lO)Concentration exceeds effluent discharge limit contaminant must be removed by Groundwate r Treatment Plant before discharge to Ihe Neponset River [ D = D A I L Y M A X A = A V O M O N T H L Y F=FISH]

c and 1-3 for effluent (Uscharge limits for organic and inorganic compounds An acute toxicity

test showed that no toxic effect was observed for the interim treatment discharge

114 Conclusions

Based on the results of the Phase I bench scale treatabUity study the combined unit

operations of fUtration foUowed by carbon adsorption were effective in treating the

contaminated groundwater coUected during the pumping tests for temporary discharge to the

Neponset River A sample of the discharge was coUected during the groundwater treatment

and it was found to contain less than the quantitation limit of 05 xgL of PCB The metals

concentrations were aU determined to be below the discharge criteria A sample was also

coUected and submitted for an acute toxicity determination The resuUs showed that no toxic

effect was observed The bench scale treatability results and the on-line discharge analyses

demonstrate that the filtration and carbon adsorption unit operations were effective temporary

treatment techniques

^ 12 FULL SCALE STUDY

A groundwater treatability study was conducted to evaluate the performance of four different

treatment processes on contaminated groundwater obtained from the Norwood PCB site The

contaminants present in the groundwater were determined during previous studies conducted

in May 1988 and AprU 1989 by EBASCO Chapter 1 of the Final FeasibUity Study

(EBASCO 1989c) contains an overview of the results obtained during these investigations

Based on the resuUs of the May 1988 and AprU 1989 field investigations EPA concluded

that the overburden and bedrock aquifers beneath the site were contaminated with

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and volatUe and semivolatile organic compounds (VOCs

and SVOCs) It was determined that surficial and subsurface soUs dredge pUes of sediments

taken from Meadow Brook sediments in Meadow Brook and sediments in the drainage

system of the buUding operated by Grant Gear were the sources of the contamination In

r

c September 1989 EPA released the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Norwood PCB site In

the ROD EPA directed that groundwater be treated with a system including activated carbon

air stripping with vapor controls and precipitationfiltration iEPA also directed that

treatability studies or pUot studies be conducted to aid in the overaU design of the system

In accordance with the ROD a bench scale treatabUity study was conducted at the ENSECO

Laboratory Facility in Cambridge Massachusetts by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel between

January 14 and February 16 1992 This report presents a description of the work

completed resuUs and conclusions of the study

121 Objectives

The fuU-scale groundwater treatability study was conducted to determine if treatment

consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping and carbon adsorption would effectively

remove the contamination present in the groundwater at the Norwood PCB site to appUcable

standards Information on the percent reduction of organic and inorganic compounds in the

groundwater volume type of residual and byproducts produced by each component were

also investigated A schematic detailing the treatability study and the sampling and analysis

conducted is presented in Figure 1-1

122 Description of Work

The treatability study was performed in accordance with Pre-Design Work Plan 3 and the

QuaUty Assurance Project Plan for the Phase n Bench-Scale TreatabiUty Study (Work

Plan 3)

Groundwater samples were coUected from the Norwood PCB site for use in this

investigation Interim sampling was performed on effluent streams generated from each

bench-scale process for analysis according to Table 1-4 Influent and final effluent samples

generated during the groundwater treatabiUty were coUected and analyzed through the CLP

^

o JAR TESTING SAMPLE ID

o

POLYMER TESTING

RAW GROUNDWATER

VOL 1 SVOL I p PCB f ^ ^ METALS

mdash SST

T

T

T

SS - Choose Polymer T ar)d Dose Estimate pH pf i After Coagu lant

Jar Test 1 PH10 bull

Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

Ume wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

Jar Test 2 pH9

Jar Test 3 pH8

bull

Lime w C oag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

JT1 -1 shy

j r i -2 shy

JT1 -3 shy

JTI-4

j r 2 - 1

JT2-2 shy

JT2-3

j r2-4 bull

JT3-1 shy

JT3-2shy

JT3-3 bull

JT3-4 shy

HLTRATION TESTING

RIter Paper 1 - SS T Time mdash |

RIter Paper 2 - SS T Time-

Rlter Paper 3 - SS T Time -

CtHXise Filter Paper or Particle Retention Size

Sample Well Using Bailer

VOL SVOL PCB CLPMETALS (PPF-1)

Precipitate and Filter Using Optimized Polymer pH Coagulant and Filter

lt

AIR STRIPPING

AJrWater Ratio 1

AirWater Ratio 2

AirWater Ratio3 ~

VOLmdash1

-VOL

-VOLmdash

SAMPLE ID CARBON ADSORPTION (All by CLP)

Carbon mdashVOL SVOL Metals AC-1

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-2

Dose 3 mdash ^ deg shy reg ^ deg ^^reg ^ ^

Carbon

Dose1

Carbon Dose 2

Cartwn

Dose 4

Cartxjn Dose 1

Carbon Dose2~

Carbon Dose 3

Carbon Dose4~

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-4

-VOL C-1

-VOL SVOL Metals C-2

-VOL PCB C-3

bull VOL SVOL Chronic Toxicity C-4

Jar Test 4 pH 10 Dup

bull

- Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

Jr4-1

JT4-2

JT4-3

Carbon Doses

Cartxgtn Dose 6

-VOL SVOL PCB

mdash VOL Metals

C-5

C-6

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals JT4-4

VOL = Volatile Organics SVOL = Semi Volatile Organics

Carbon Dose 7

mdashVOL SVOL C-7

SS = Suspended Solids

NaOH-MNAL JT5-1 T = Turbidity

Jar Test 5 pHIO

NaOH - wPolymer - MN AL

NaOH wPoly wCoag RItered - MN AL

JT5-2

JT5-3

NaOH wPdy wCoag Aerated andRItered - MN AL

JT5-4

^ NaOH wPdy wCoag PermanganateRItered - MN M

JT5-5

J O Special FIGURE 1-1 TREATABILITY STUDY

Optimize pH Decide Ume or NaOH

SAMPUNG AND ANALYSIS SCHEMATIC

Compare Polymer vs Coagulant

(J DF222658HW

c

c

TABLE 1-4 TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Number Bench Scale Process

Groundwater Treatability Study

Initial Groundwater

Preliminary Polymer Testing

Precipitation Supemant

FUtration Effluent

Metals Sludge Precipitated and FUtered Effluent with Groundwater CoUected with BaUer

Air Stripping Effluent

Air Stripped Carbon Adsorption Effluent

Non Air Stripped Carbon Effluent

Sludge Sample

Rock Washing Study

Initial Rocks Initial Gravel from roof Stone from Cap Washed Rocks Washed Stones

Samples

1

1 1

16 16 16

3 3

1 2 2 2

3

4 4 2 2

7 4 2 2 1 1

3 5 6 3 1

Analysis

VolatUes SemivolatUes PCB Metals Suspended SoUds pH Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity Metals VolatUe Organics

Suspended SoUds TuAidity

PCB VolatUe Organics PCB SemivolatUe Organics

VolatUe Organics

SemivolatUe Organics VolatUe Organics Metals PCB

VolatUe Organics SemivolatUe Organics Metals PCB Chronic Toxicity PCBs Metals

PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB

Laboratory

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

c

c

c

system for volatUes semivolatUes PCBs and metals AU interim samples were analyzed at

ENSECO in Cambridge Massachusetts AU data was vaUdated by MampE according to the

QAPP

1221 Groundwater Sample CoUection Groundwater for this study was coUected from

weUs MW-IA and ME-8 as shown on Figure 1-2 iMW-lA was chosen as a sampling

location because it was determined to be one of the most contaminated weUs on-site based

on previous investigations During the course of the treatabiUty study a decision was made

to obtain samples from ME-8 because results of the most recent sampling effort conducted by

ICF indicated that groundwater from this weU contained approximately 200 xgL vinyl

chloride whereas groundwater from MW-IA no longer contained any quantifiable amount

Removal of vinyl chloride by aeration needed to be demonstrated during this investigation

because vinyl chloride is not effectively removed by carbon adsorption

Groundwater samples were obtained on four separate occasions during the study as shown in

Table 1-5 On each occasion the groundwater was coUected in accordance with the Field

Sampling Plan Three weU volumes of water were purged from the weU using a centrifiigal

pump before any samples were coUected The pH temperature and conductivity of the

purge water was measured after each weU volume untU the measured values differed by less

than 10 for three consecutive samples to ensure the sample drawn was representative of the

water in the aquifer Samples for the metals precipitation and filtration study were coUected

using a centrifugal pump Samples for the air stripping and carbon adsorption study were

coUected with a teflon baUer to minimize aeration and possible loss of volatUes during

sample coUection

The samples were coUected in one gallon amber glass bottles and stored at 4degC Each

sample bottle wasfiUed to exclude a headspace in the bottle

e 10

200 200

SCALE IN FEET

D CAP ROCK SAMPLE LOCATION

bull WELLS

nOURE 1-2 GROUNDWATER AND TRENCH AND CAP

ROCK SAMPLING LOCATIONS

11

E T C A L F a EDDY

c TABLE 1-5 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING SUMMARY

Mode of Date WeU Amount Sampled pH Temp degC Conductivity SampUng

11392 MW-IA 10 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm pump

12792 MW-IA 16 gaUons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20392 MW-IA 16 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20592 ME-8 2 gallons 64 8deg 230 umhocm baUer

1222 Precipitation Testing

General Chemical precipitation for the removal of metals was evaluated at three pH values

and three polymer dosages to determine the effectiveness of the treatment A preliminary

evaluation of different coagulants and polymers was conducted at three pH values by

r Metcalf amp Eddy personnel and a leading polymer vendor to determine which chemicals could

potentiaUy be used to precipitate groundwater Based on the results from the preliminary

evaluation jar tests were conducted by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel to aid in the determination

of the chemical dosages required to optimize the effectiveness of precipitation

Polymer and Coagulent Testing Polymer testing was performed by Metcalf amp Eddy and a

leading polymer vendor at the ENSECO laboratory faciUty in Cambridge Massachusetts

The effectiveness of anionic cationic and nonioiuc polymer was evaluated at three pH

values The best polymer was determined to be Drewfloc 2270 a low charge anionic high

molecular weight polymer This polymer was used in jar tests 1 through 5 The best

coagulent was determined to be Charge Pack 12 (CP-12) a higher charge cationic low

molecular weight coagulent The CP-12 coagulent was used in jar tests 1 through 5

described under jar testing

12 c

InitiaUy the effects of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was investigated Tests c were conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 with sodium hydroxide which had the best

settling characteristics based on visual observation and turbidity measurement Each polymer

was then tested at pH = 100 to evaluate Us effectiveness under optimum pH conditions

A formula of polymer and coagulant addition was developed based on visual observations

suspended soUds and turbidity analyses performed on each sample generated during the

investigation The anionic polymer effectively flocculated the existing smaU suspended

particles and the addkion of cationic coagulant removed iron and color when the pH was

raised to 100

Jar Testing Five jar tests were performed using the polymer and coagulants determined to

be effective during preliminary testing Jar tests 1 and 4 were conducted as dupUcates at

ph 10 Jar test 2 was conducted at pH 9 jar test 3 was conducted at pH 8 and jar test 5 was

conducted at pH 10 On each occasion prior to beginning the jar test the raw groundwater

was brought tol5deg-17degCina warm water bath The temperature was held constant to c eliminate the effects of temperature on reaction rates and solubUity

The foUowing is a description of activities conducted during the jar tests fti through 4 See

Figure 1-1 for details Four samples were evaluated during each jar test For each jar test

four 15 Uter beakers were fiUed with 1 Uter of raw groundwater The beakers were placed

on the stirrer platform and the paddles were lowered into the sample The jar stirrer was

operated at 80 revolutions per minute (rpm) The pH was then adjusted to the desired value

(pH = 10 9 8 10 for Tests 1 2 3 4) with a lime slurry in two samples and with a

sodium hydroxide solution (25) in the remaining two samples Lime was added to

investigate its effects on the precipitate and to evaluate its effectiveness in pH adjustment

The cationic coagulant was then added to each sample untU the concentration in solution was

30 mgL The solution was stirred at 80 rpm for 2 minutes to ensure complete mixing The

polymer was then added to one sample pH adjusted with sodium hydroxide and one sample

pH adjusted with lime Mixing continued for two minutes Next the solution was stirred

13 c

slowly orflocculated for five minutes at 20 rpm FinaUy the solutions were aUowed to

c settle for 10 minutes Visual observations were recorded and samples were submitted for

suspended soUds turbidity and metals analyses

Jar test 5 was performed to assess the removal of manganese and aluminum by preaeration

and permanganate additions (see Figure 1-1) Because no significant benefit was observed in

the previous tests when lime was used instead of sodium hydroxide sodium hydroxide was

used to adjust the pH in aU four samples to a pH of 100 in jar test 5 Only sodium

hydroxide was added to the groundwater in the first jar to determine the removal of

manganese and aluminum attributable to the formation of an insoluble salt at high pH

Sodium hydroxide and polymer were added to the second jar to evaluate the effectiveness of

the polymer Sodium hydroxide polymer and coagulant were added to sample 4 The

supemate from sample 4 was then fUtered This was performed to determine if the required

removal efficiencies could be achieved by chemical precipitation and filtration

Permanganate was added to sample 3 in addition to sodium hydroxide coagulant and

polymer to determine if the manganese and aluminum present could be chemicaUy oxidized c to a less soluble state which would enhance the efficiency of fUtration The supemate was

then siphoned off using clean tygon tubing and a syringe into the sample containers

Samples were submitted for metals suspended soUds and turbidity as illustrated on

Figure 1-1

1223 Filtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was perfonned to determine the

optimum pore size of filter media that could effectively remove the suspended soUds in the

precipitated groundwater The determination of the removal efficiency for each filter was

based on the concentration of suspended soUds and turbidity of the filtered water The time

required to filter the groundwater was also evaluated

Prior to filtration the metals in the groundwater were precipitated and coagulent and polymer

were added using the optimum conditions developed during the precipitation study The

optimum conditions consisted of pH adjustment to 10 with sodium hydroxide addition of

14 c

coagulent CP-12 to a concentration of one percent and addition of Drewfloc 2270 polymer to

c a concentration of 10 mgl Three grades (10 xm 5 xm and 1 xm pore sizes) of filter

paper were used with a Buchner ftmnel to filter aUquots of the precipitated groundwater

Samples of the filtered water were submitted to ENSECO for suspended soUds and turbidity

analysis

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge was coUected during the treatability study The

sludge sample was submitted to the CLP system for PCB and metals analysis so that a

characterization of the sludge could be made and disposal options could be evaluated

1224 Air Stripping Testing Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at three

different air to water ratios to determine the most effective stripping ratio To ensure that

worst case volatUe organic compound concentrations were present in the samples for this

study some modifications were made in how the sample was coUected and treated First

the groundwater was coUected with a baUer to prevent the loss of volatUes AdditionaUy the

water was fUtered under positive pressure foUowing the precipitation step to minimize the c loss of volatUes that would result if the water was filtered using a vacuum pump

An aquarium pump tygon tubing and aeration stone with a glass-fiber fUter cartridge was

used to aerate 1-Uter aUquots of precipitated and filtered groundwater The aeration flow

rate was caUbrated by filling a graduated cylinder with air that had been filled with tap water

and inverted in a water bath The air was diffused at 375 missec into 1-Uter aUquots of

groundwater and the time measured as iUustrated in Table 1-6 The aerated groundwater was

submitted to ENSECO for volatUe organics analysis

1225 Carbon Adsorption Testing The effectiveness of activated carbon for the removal

of organic compounds in the groundwater at the site was evaluated The carbon used was

the powdered activated 325 mesh carbon suppUed by Calgon Corporation The groundwater

samples used for this investigation were obtained and filtered as described in the air stripping

15 c

c

c

TABLE 1-6 AERATION TEST OPERATIONS

Air to Water Ratio Volume Volume of by Volume of Water Air Reqd Min of Aeration

251 1000 ml 25000 ml 111 501 1000 ml 50000 ml 222 751 1000 ml 75000 ml 333

section of this report to minimize the loss of volatUes A total of twelve samples were mn

during this investigation The necessity of air stripping was investigated by comparing the

resuUs from four samples that were air stripped to seven samples that were treated identicaUy

with the exception of air stripping AU samples for the air stripping comparison went

through the precipitation filtration and carbon adsorption processes AdditionaUy one

sample was prepared with no carbon added to serve as an untreated sample The samples are

summarized in Table 1-7 Each groundwater sample was prepared and mixed with a

predetermined dose of Calgon powdered 325 mesh activated carbon and placed m an open

Erlenmyer flask on a shaker table for a two-hour time period at 180 rpm A rotary shaker

table capable of accommodating twelve (12)-1000 ml Erlenmyer flasks was used Effluent

was fUtered with a barrel filter using a glass-fiber pre-fUter and a Whatman 45 micron

membrane The effluent clear and odorless in aU cases was added to sample containers

preserved and packed for shipment to CLP laboratories Since the shaker table could

accommodate 12 flasks a total of approximately 4 gaUons of effluent was generated during

each mn Several mns were performed to generate adequate quantities of sample for

analysis accordmg to Table 1-7 Groundwater was simUarly prepared for submittal to

Aquatec Lab in Burlington Vermont for chronic toxicity testing Three (3) shipments of

approximately 2 gaUons each were made

r 16

C) o o TABLE 1-7 CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation Filtration Aeration amp Carbon

AC-1 05 V SV MET 3400 3 1067 054 AC-2 20 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 22 AC-3 50 V SV MET 3400 3 1133 57 AC-4 100 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 110 AC-5 Trip Blank 0 V

Precipitation Filtration amp Carbon

C-0 0 V 500 1 500 0

C-1 05 V SV MET 3200 3 1067 053

c-2 10 V PCB 2200 2 1100 11

C-3 20 V SV CT 29000 24 1250 25

C-4 50 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 55

C-17 70 V MET 1200 1 1200 70

C-18 100 V SV 2200 2 1100 110

C-13 Treatability Blank 0 V PCB 2200 0 0 0

C-20 Trip Blank 0 V 0

C-10 Duplicate of C-1 05 SV 2000 2 1000 05

C-1 05 (MSMSD) 500 1 500 025

C-11 Duplicate of C-1 05 MET 1000 1 1000 05

C-20 Duplicate of C-2 10 V PCB (MSMSD)

4400 4 1100 11

C-16 Duplicate of C-4 50 PCB 2000 2 1000 50

C-6 0 PCB 2000 2 1000 0

17

o o n TABLE 1-7 (Continued) CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation amp Filtration

PPF-1 V SV MET PCB 2000 2 1000 0

Sludge

Sludge-1 0 MET PCB 0

V = VolatUe organics SV = Semivolatile organics MET = Metals PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls CT = Chronic toxicity MSMSD = Matrix spikematrix spike dup D = DupUcate TB = Trip blank PPF = Precipitated and pressure filtered

(to minimize volatUes loss as opposed to vacuum filtration)

18

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

Section One

10 GROUNDWATER

11 INTERIM STUDY

111 Introduction and Objectives

Performance of the pumping test phase of the hydrogeologic investigation at the Norwood

PCB site resulted in the accumulation of approximately 25000 gaUons of contaminated

groundwater In order to properly dispose of this contaminated groundwater a Phase I bench

scale treatabUity study was undertaken The objective of the treatabiUty study was to

determine whether two unit operations filtration and carbon adsorption would be effective

in treating the contaminated groundwater so that it could be discharged to the Neponset River

under a temporary permit without any adverse effects to human health or the environment

112 Description of Work

c On August 28 1991 a sample of groundwater was coUected from the Norwood PCB site for

use in the Phase I bench-scale treatability study The sample was coUected from WeU

MW-IA one of the most contaminated weUs at the Norwood PCB site The Phase I

groundwater treatability study was conducted and sample analysis performed during

September 1991 at Hydrosample Laboratory in Northboro Massachusetts

The groundwater sampling and the generation of the treatability samples was conducted in

accordance with the Interim Pre-Design Work Plan No 3 Phase I for the temporary

groundwater treatment plant Three different pore size or particle retention grades of fUter

paper were evaluated for filtration rate and PCB removal The coarse Whatman filter had a

pore size of 10 microns the medium had a pore size of 5 microns and the fine had a pore

size of 1 micron These sizes were chosen because they are the smaUest commerciaUy

avaUable sizes The filtration unit operation was evaluated both as the only treatment

technique and as the initial operation in a filtration carbon adsorption treatment scheme

1 c

c

c

For an evaluation of the carbon adsorption unit operation samples of the three fUtrates were

percolated through a 1 glass column charged with Calgon brand activated carbon Calgons

powdered activated 325 mesh carbon was recommended by Calgon for use in the bench-

scale studies because it decreases the contact time required for adsorption and can be filtered

out of the groundwater with a 045 micron pore size filter Each fUtrate was subjected to the

same carbon treatment The flow rate through the carbon column was adjusted to simulate

the fuU scale onsite carbon adsorption flow rate

113 Results

The results of the Phase I treatability study showed that PCBs the contaminants of greatest

concem were not removed by the filtration unit operation when it was employed as the only

treatment technique This indicates that the PCBs were dissolved or adhered to suspended

material finer than the smaUest commerciaUy avaUable filter pore size and that filtration

alone carmot remove PCBs to the cleanup level Activated carbon is necessary to achieve

PCB cleanup levels

The PCB results from the filtered carbon adsorbed samples indicated that the carbon

removed aU of the PCBs to a concentration of less than 05 xgL The analytical data was

vaUdated using the Data QuaUty Objective (DQO) Level HI criteria outlined in the

Groundwater Bench-Scale Phase I treatability Study QuaUty Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)

All of the analytical data was determined to be vaUd The PCB analytical resuUs are

presented in Table 1-1

One sample of the treated groundwater discharge from the interim treatment operation was

coUected on November 25 1991 The sample was analyzed and found to contain less than

050 jugL PCBs This sample was also analyzed for the twenty three Target Analyte List

(TAL) metals All of the metals concentrations were below the discharge limits calculated

based on AWQC and the flow rate of the discharge and the Neponset River See Tables 1-2

c

c

c

TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF PCB RESULTS FOR PHASE I TREATABILITY SAMPLES

Aroclor 1254 Surrogate Recoveries Concentration xgL TCMX DBC

Initial Sample 48 J 26 93 (Settled Decanted)

Coarse FUtered 63 J 57 102

Coarse FUtered DupUcate 79 140 105

Medium FUtered 59 61 108

Fine FUtered 52 78 97

Coarse FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 75 105

Medium FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 72 92

Fine FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 101

Method Blank 050 UJ 58

Pump Equipment Blank 050 UJ 36 110

TCMX = 2 4 5 6 tetrachlorometaxylene CLP 390 SOW Advisory Recovery Range 60 shy150

DBC = Dibutylchlorendate CLP 288 SOW Advisory Recovery Range 24-154

A non-PCB positive interfering compound coeluted with the DBC surrogate in the method blank therefore the surrogate recovery could not be quantitated

Aroclors 1221 1232 1242 1248 and 1260 were nondetected (050 U) in aU samples

Coarse FUter 10 micron pore size Medium FUter 5 micron pore size Fine FUter 1 micron pore size

c

o C) o TABLE 1-2 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER WITH EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

bull v - o x - - - - - - - - bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - - bull bull bull

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull gt bull bull bull bull gt bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull o gt pMWmmmXiiizz-mm^ 4SoSiSSiyS iSs DAILY - AVQ ^bull sectMMMsectMM mM i^i^^^^

W^MM^0 i ^^ ^ i ^ ^ ) ) ^ ^ ^ ^

liffiSaiArtiMifiig wampsectii^i9MMzWMM^lt

i 0 t M B W ^ SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE

-yio|ijMi i|5|laquoiilifc^ li^Oimim

PHASEn PHASE I PHASE

SURFACE BEDROCK BEDROCK

SjiA3tliilAM|li-^ isiowfciili^rBo^

(van) (uan) (uou

PHASEE

BEDROCK

fuow

iiHiisii BEDROCK

iiiiiiiiiixiii ixc ilfeiiili f-iO(3Msect

Wyt(Bm m^mmM miimmiM camamm WmM-M

|ii|iiiU-S |JipSEsiit||l ^ ^

Mi(iiteiii iciiiiitiii f-Wi^WM

ilii^y^iii illi^i^liliiiSl-liN lGipilaquooiraquoi|i|ii| ^^^ljMm$m-

MAXIMUM

EFFLUENT

DISCHARGE

bull^ bull bull L E V E L bullbullbull

(U6L) (8gt(gt)

MONTHLY

EFFLUENT

DISCHAROE

bull iLEVEL bullbull

(tlOLi (8)(9)

bull||yensi|| W0fW^iz

DISCHAROE

sectBlWW$W ( U a U (8)(9)

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull

iiil iW^

VOLATILE OROANICS

111-TricUoiocthuie 3 3 - - NC NC 170000 NC NC 68850000

M^iM^l ia i t i^^ W MMf ^ ^ i ^ M

Vinyl Chloride

mMWMimMilBMMM iil|||i||i||i|||||

14 14 73

SSi5i5

W S X i i m S M 120 23 6S 110

bull -

bull bull T

no

Wfimmim ISiMBB

NC

llliNGSM iiiipltiiii

NC

bulliiSfi4i|ii-

li PIiAlio|jifshy-3250

mimpmamp wwrnmim-NC

ampampllz-^f^C

Wwyen WM NC

170100

bull bull bull bull shy bull ^ raquo - S 5 lt gt

2126250

12-Dieliloroethene (toUl) 77 300 199 560 44 68 43 no 11600 (13) NC 1400000 (4) 4698000 NC 567000000

|||iiSi^i||laquo|||ii^^^^^^^^

Xylenei (total)

kz^z23i(iwMitiMM^^ W0$0Tisectsectg^^

6 6 shy

|isii7Pois

WlampMlMampW0 - shy shy shy

i-wip

-

z4smmm lmm0(M

NC

sSiiiraquolii(i)l iilltlaquoili

NC

i--iii ii -^lli||Piiiii

NC

ioisiaiiiSipop lsectfiMm

NC

i-Mti969M)

i - zF ^M SC

372ib0

$$laquo43

NC

bullWz-i

SEMIVOLATILES

23S-Trichioioi)beaol 10 10 - - NC NC NC NC NC NC

j|NiiwUfl|ropw^^

13-Dictiloiobeiizeiie

sectMimiMmm^ i|il||||iii|i||i

4 4 shy

i-siJ(t| ii|i WSMWiMMMiWMMM^

-

WMsect M WBWWrshy-

MiMxim- $MM^Mz

NO

m-z^mmi m^msmm NC

IM---iiiMMM WzMW Sk

2600

|Siii laquowq zz^Wlt^^

NC

bullMz-zziMii WzlMM

NC

kiMAz-iMampi WmtW^

1053000

14-Dichlorobenzeiie 14 14 48 67 shy shy shy - NC NC 2600 NC NC 1053000

| i i | l i t j | i i | i | ^

ii|ii|llllilill^ bullimMmMMiiMWMM ghif^m^MmMmiM^

iSmMMyMMsectsectMfziM^ i||||i|i |i|j|||^

bulliMMiiM ^zZ^ZzZZZZ^

^ --zllMMmd |sii|i|ii|

- ISSiiii lls-^iiil

i^iMM^i-iM wiiiW^Sz

iliiO-ii i l- iif-iiiii

WM--z ampiM fampMM

f bull iSilwiobtti

|i|3jl|i|

P C B I

Aioclor-1254 34 180 26 89 64 8 24 27 20 fT) 0014 CT) 00045 810 57 18 AF

secti^^MMMampMM^^ Aroclor-1254 (paper-filtered)

Arociot-124S

BM iM-mi-MmsectMMMiz iiili|iiililiiiliiliiiii

- - l i

liJii -rilSiiiiiil

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii l-l il shy shy -

ilJi|i i-sectsectMBsect i

-

j 0 lt7) iOjCT)

20 (7)

Oi014 (7)

001 (7)

0014 CD

immmmB WMi^MampMi

00IM5

MM--zMshyi bulll l i l i |iloi

^

-bull-iigtM

WsectM0-amp 57

nzzmmm mlBWM

18

V

Aroclof-1248 (ghit-filteRd) 4 4 shy shy shy - 20 (7) 0014 CT) 00045 810 57 18 F

Phaie I RI umpling conducted in May 1988 Phaae II RI lampling conducted in April 1989

NC bull No criteria cxitta for thia compound

(1) Inaufficient Data to Develop Criteria Value preaented ia LOEL shy Loweit Obierved Effect Level

(2) Value preaented for carelnogeiia ia the 10-5 level

(3) Value preaented ia for dichloroethenea

(4) Value preieoted ia for trana 12-dichloroetliene

(5) pH dependent criteria (78 pH uted)

(6) Value preaented ia for chlorinated benzenea

(7) Value presented ia for total PCBa

(8) Effluent DiKhaige Limit based upon an effluent discharge of 5 gpm to the Neponset River during the 7-day low flow lOyr recurrence (2O20gpm)

USGS Pleasant Street Oauging Station on the Neponset River

(9) Dilution factor =[(5gpm+2020gpm)5gpml= 405

(lO)Concentration exceeds effluent discharge limit contaminant must be removed by Groundwater Treatment Plant before discharge to surface water [D=DAILY MAX A=AVG MONTHLY F=FISH]

-

-

-

- - -

-

-

-

-

-

o n o TABLE 1-3 COMPARISON OF METAL CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER WFTH EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull bull bull bull gt gt bull gt bull bull bull bull bull - bull bulliii|vO|| iS iggJMLnei i iaD s-UNFILTEREDgssHis M-B33nsRmmMMM D A I L Y iiiiiiiiiiiiiAVGiiiiii |i mmmmMmmm Xy lira^li P H A S E I WtiiMM liwiAiiiii iiiiimiii iii-pHiwiiliiiii WampMM P H A S E I ilii iiwgiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiili|i| iiii iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii M A X I M U M iiiiipifriiii^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiiifiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

555^gt5^5V555^^^^ i i i ilaquoiij S U R F A C E m m m Wtm^itM B E D R O C K bull bull gt f t bullbullbull B E D R O C K iiiFRiiliiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiijsiiiiiriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii|iiiiiiliiiiiiii E F F L U E N T E F F L U E N T E F F L U E N T iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii wmmm |||ii||li| |i IliAiiiiil WliampiMM liiiiltiilii^isiiii liiiiifctAXliii iiiAiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^i^iibhreiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii liiiiiii iiHiiiiiiiiiiiiii- D I S C H A R O E D I S C H A R O E D I S C H A R O E iiiii imm^mi mmmn WmMm WBrnB

PARAlt4ETER W iMmm iiiiiiiii iiitjiiiii Wi^MMM iiii iiiiiiiiilii iiiaraquoliiii W-imMMi iiiiiiaiiiii mMmmmm iCSiiMAiiiiii O O N S U M P iiiiiiiVEitiiii liiiiisyifeEiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiitiiiiL iiii cii^i iiiiiifl|5iili iiiiiiili (UOW iiiiiiii (oon) iiiiult3piili (UOL) lzMcii0m (UGL) iipiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|^(Siliiiiiiiiii|iiiiii (UOL) (2) (UOL) (6)C7) (IKJL) (6)C7) (UOn) (6) C7) i^iipi

M E T A L S

A h m i n u m 154000 390000 119 352 12500 43900 74 77 NA NA NA NC NC NC

i^poundi1i liiiiiii^iii iiiiiiiPi iii|ilsi iliiiJsiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iii-iili liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii-raquoiiiilti)ij^i JiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiW)i(5i iiiiiiiiiiiiii6Pigtiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiS5iraquoii)i iiiiiitiraquo50 iiiiii3f laquoltraquollishyJ^Sn^iii-illii iiiillifil II |-Iilliiii WlampMi liiliii-ii iiiiiiiifiiiiiili 22a iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii^iiiliiiiiii iiiiiiiiN iiiiiiliiiiiiiii iii-iiiiiiiiiii ifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii fiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiii i iiiiii i j ^ i iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiip iiiiiiiii Bar ium 690 1640 67 2laquo9 53 147 97 19 NC NC NC (5) NC NC NC Beryll ium 18 32 130 (1) 53 (1) 131 52650 2147 531

|^i^ii|litx i s bull liillliSi ZZZZZZZZZ i|||i-^i - iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiii --i|yiiiWi iiiifslt^laquoiiiiiii3jiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiltfcjii i(3yiiiliii iiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiJC iiii-S iifiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMi iiiiiiilii154- bull i i - i i6laquo856i mzMkm iiiiiiiliiii ii|iijji||ii|||i 9lMMi MmiMi zZ^ mm iiiiiiiifi li^iiiiiiiiiraquoliiii 33100 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilMi^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiieiiiii^iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Pi iiiiiiiiiiiiNti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij^i

Chromium 206 526 1 8 18 34 104 16 W 11 (4) 3200 (4) 648b 4455 1296000 -Cobal t 113 295 19 22 36 40 NC NC NC NC NC NC

fMgtimi-^ztm zmisectmi iMiMM wmmi M^iiiiampii iiJiiM 189 iiiiiiiiiisiiiiiilaquo3iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifii iiiiiiiiiiiliiiii^-iiiii isiiiiiiiiiiisiiiii CJiiiiiijiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiStCiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM bullsiiiii iiiiiiili5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiigtireii iiiiiiii-shy bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull iiiiiiliiiiiiWiii bull bull laquo raquo - iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiilifii iiiiiiiiiiii iii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii l i i i i i i i i i i^ i l l l i s i i iiiiii i-iiiiiiiSiiiiiiisiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|fltii- 405000 iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiwii iiiiAiiishymBmmm imampmm WmMM Wimm iiiiillili iiiiiiiiliiiiiii

Lead 43 i t3 21 168 l i 37 30 168 14 (3) 054 p) NC 5670 219 NC

Magnes ium 42400 148000 3950 8990 8630 21100 5040 11200 NC NC NC NC NC NC

iiititlj^iusibiii^j iilllJii^ -M-W^M iiiiiiii^^i^ ii-|7laquo- L5W iiiiiiiiiiiiiilliiifii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiltiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii ii5iiiiiiie iiiiiiiiiiii bullbull bull l t raquo iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNC iiiiiiii isci i i i | | i i i | | i p i i II0M^I iiiiiliiiiiiiiilii WM^MmM ilillilflil i | | | l il |o| | l i i l i P liiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiip8iii bullbull ( U si i l i l i iiiiii- iiii-li|i5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiipiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiii -i- o-iil bull iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiii laquoiii

Nicke l 164 452 64 104 643 (3) 33 (3) 3800 260415 13365 1539000 -Potaaaium 13100 33400 2800 5420 4580 9790 3280 5780 NC NC NC NC NC NC

i|i3laquo|i |s||i ilsectiampim illii|li MmMm iiliil|^i7ii il-lii^|iiraquoiii- (iiltii iliiiiiii^iiiiili^^^ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiii2iwiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiliis lt 6800 ii5iiiiiiiyilaquoJpll i iiiiiiiiiifiiil ^iiilOWi iiiiiii3^lHWraquoi iiiiii--i

|i|||ii Iliii illl|iillSI |illliSl^| illillaquoii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiliiltiii laquo raquo iiiiiiiiiiiii||i||| iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii|i|ltoigttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiliiiiilii iiiiiiiiiiiii bull^bull i l iNc| i-|iiiii -i-iii ii gti5 i iiiiiiiili^^ iiiiiiiiiiii Oiiiiiiii|i bulliiiiiiii Sodium 14100 28900 12500 26raquo00 16320 33200 16300 68000 N c NC NC Nc NC Nc Thal l ium 10 10 58 10 1400 (1) 40 (1) 32 567000 16200 1296

igtPiiiilli MmmmiM liilililil iiliiiiisii iii|ii| bulliiii iiiiiisiiilii iiiiiiiiiiiii|i ii^|i iiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii iiiiiiii ii^iliiiiiiiNiilliiiiiiiji- bulli|iiiiiflaquoSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii|lNe-|i-ii iiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Nc iiiiiii liiNCii iiiiiii iiiiiiiilifiei iiiii iiiiiii iilaquo|||il| mmmmi m m m i M iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisil i iiiisiiiiilllii iiiiliiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiitii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiii iiiiiiliili-|s4ii iiilliiiiiiii ssiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii^^iii-iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii 13365 iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiip^ P b a i e I RI sampling conducted in M a y 1988 Phase II RI samplmg conducted in Apri l 1989

N C = N o cri teria exiata for th is compotmd

N A = N o t Available

(1) Insufficient Data to Develop Cri ter ia Value presented is L O E L - Lowest Observed Effect Level

(2) Value preaented for careinogena ia the 10-S level

(3) Hardness dependent c r i te r ia (25 mgA C A C 0 3 uaed)

(4) Value presented is for Ihe m o r e toxic hexavalent form

(5) Value presented is proposed (more conservat ive)

(6) Effluent Discharge L imi t dilution factor based upon an effluent discbarge of 5 gpm to the Neponse t River during the 7 - d a y low flow lOyr recurrence (2020gpm)

USOS Pleasant Street Oaug ing atation on the Neponset River

(7) Dilut ion factor =[(Sgpm+2020gpm)Sgpm]= 405

(lO)Concentration exceeds effluent discharge limit contaminant must be removed by Groundwate r Treatment Plant before discharge to Ihe Neponset River [ D = D A I L Y M A X A = A V O M O N T H L Y F=FISH]

c and 1-3 for effluent (Uscharge limits for organic and inorganic compounds An acute toxicity

test showed that no toxic effect was observed for the interim treatment discharge

114 Conclusions

Based on the results of the Phase I bench scale treatabUity study the combined unit

operations of fUtration foUowed by carbon adsorption were effective in treating the

contaminated groundwater coUected during the pumping tests for temporary discharge to the

Neponset River A sample of the discharge was coUected during the groundwater treatment

and it was found to contain less than the quantitation limit of 05 xgL of PCB The metals

concentrations were aU determined to be below the discharge criteria A sample was also

coUected and submitted for an acute toxicity determination The resuUs showed that no toxic

effect was observed The bench scale treatability results and the on-line discharge analyses

demonstrate that the filtration and carbon adsorption unit operations were effective temporary

treatment techniques

^ 12 FULL SCALE STUDY

A groundwater treatability study was conducted to evaluate the performance of four different

treatment processes on contaminated groundwater obtained from the Norwood PCB site The

contaminants present in the groundwater were determined during previous studies conducted

in May 1988 and AprU 1989 by EBASCO Chapter 1 of the Final FeasibUity Study

(EBASCO 1989c) contains an overview of the results obtained during these investigations

Based on the resuUs of the May 1988 and AprU 1989 field investigations EPA concluded

that the overburden and bedrock aquifers beneath the site were contaminated with

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and volatUe and semivolatile organic compounds (VOCs

and SVOCs) It was determined that surficial and subsurface soUs dredge pUes of sediments

taken from Meadow Brook sediments in Meadow Brook and sediments in the drainage

system of the buUding operated by Grant Gear were the sources of the contamination In

r

c September 1989 EPA released the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Norwood PCB site In

the ROD EPA directed that groundwater be treated with a system including activated carbon

air stripping with vapor controls and precipitationfiltration iEPA also directed that

treatability studies or pUot studies be conducted to aid in the overaU design of the system

In accordance with the ROD a bench scale treatabUity study was conducted at the ENSECO

Laboratory Facility in Cambridge Massachusetts by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel between

January 14 and February 16 1992 This report presents a description of the work

completed resuUs and conclusions of the study

121 Objectives

The fuU-scale groundwater treatability study was conducted to determine if treatment

consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping and carbon adsorption would effectively

remove the contamination present in the groundwater at the Norwood PCB site to appUcable

standards Information on the percent reduction of organic and inorganic compounds in the

groundwater volume type of residual and byproducts produced by each component were

also investigated A schematic detailing the treatability study and the sampling and analysis

conducted is presented in Figure 1-1

122 Description of Work

The treatability study was performed in accordance with Pre-Design Work Plan 3 and the

QuaUty Assurance Project Plan for the Phase n Bench-Scale TreatabiUty Study (Work

Plan 3)

Groundwater samples were coUected from the Norwood PCB site for use in this

investigation Interim sampling was performed on effluent streams generated from each

bench-scale process for analysis according to Table 1-4 Influent and final effluent samples

generated during the groundwater treatabiUty were coUected and analyzed through the CLP

^

o JAR TESTING SAMPLE ID

o

POLYMER TESTING

RAW GROUNDWATER

VOL 1 SVOL I p PCB f ^ ^ METALS

mdash SST

T

T

T

SS - Choose Polymer T ar)d Dose Estimate pH pf i After Coagu lant

Jar Test 1 PH10 bull

Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

Ume wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

Jar Test 2 pH9

Jar Test 3 pH8

bull

Lime w C oag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

JT1 -1 shy

j r i -2 shy

JT1 -3 shy

JTI-4

j r 2 - 1

JT2-2 shy

JT2-3

j r2-4 bull

JT3-1 shy

JT3-2shy

JT3-3 bull

JT3-4 shy

HLTRATION TESTING

RIter Paper 1 - SS T Time mdash |

RIter Paper 2 - SS T Time-

Rlter Paper 3 - SS T Time -

CtHXise Filter Paper or Particle Retention Size

Sample Well Using Bailer

VOL SVOL PCB CLPMETALS (PPF-1)

Precipitate and Filter Using Optimized Polymer pH Coagulant and Filter

lt

AIR STRIPPING

AJrWater Ratio 1

AirWater Ratio 2

AirWater Ratio3 ~

VOLmdash1

-VOL

-VOLmdash

SAMPLE ID CARBON ADSORPTION (All by CLP)

Carbon mdashVOL SVOL Metals AC-1

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-2

Dose 3 mdash ^ deg shy reg ^ deg ^^reg ^ ^

Carbon

Dose1

Carbon Dose 2

Cartwn

Dose 4

Cartxjn Dose 1

Carbon Dose2~

Carbon Dose 3

Carbon Dose4~

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-4

-VOL C-1

-VOL SVOL Metals C-2

-VOL PCB C-3

bull VOL SVOL Chronic Toxicity C-4

Jar Test 4 pH 10 Dup

bull

- Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

Jr4-1

JT4-2

JT4-3

Carbon Doses

Cartxgtn Dose 6

-VOL SVOL PCB

mdash VOL Metals

C-5

C-6

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals JT4-4

VOL = Volatile Organics SVOL = Semi Volatile Organics

Carbon Dose 7

mdashVOL SVOL C-7

SS = Suspended Solids

NaOH-MNAL JT5-1 T = Turbidity

Jar Test 5 pHIO

NaOH - wPolymer - MN AL

NaOH wPoly wCoag RItered - MN AL

JT5-2

JT5-3

NaOH wPdy wCoag Aerated andRItered - MN AL

JT5-4

^ NaOH wPdy wCoag PermanganateRItered - MN M

JT5-5

J O Special FIGURE 1-1 TREATABILITY STUDY

Optimize pH Decide Ume or NaOH

SAMPUNG AND ANALYSIS SCHEMATIC

Compare Polymer vs Coagulant

(J DF222658HW

c

c

TABLE 1-4 TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Number Bench Scale Process

Groundwater Treatability Study

Initial Groundwater

Preliminary Polymer Testing

Precipitation Supemant

FUtration Effluent

Metals Sludge Precipitated and FUtered Effluent with Groundwater CoUected with BaUer

Air Stripping Effluent

Air Stripped Carbon Adsorption Effluent

Non Air Stripped Carbon Effluent

Sludge Sample

Rock Washing Study

Initial Rocks Initial Gravel from roof Stone from Cap Washed Rocks Washed Stones

Samples

1

1 1

16 16 16

3 3

1 2 2 2

3

4 4 2 2

7 4 2 2 1 1

3 5 6 3 1

Analysis

VolatUes SemivolatUes PCB Metals Suspended SoUds pH Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity Metals VolatUe Organics

Suspended SoUds TuAidity

PCB VolatUe Organics PCB SemivolatUe Organics

VolatUe Organics

SemivolatUe Organics VolatUe Organics Metals PCB

VolatUe Organics SemivolatUe Organics Metals PCB Chronic Toxicity PCBs Metals

PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB

Laboratory

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

c

c

c

system for volatUes semivolatUes PCBs and metals AU interim samples were analyzed at

ENSECO in Cambridge Massachusetts AU data was vaUdated by MampE according to the

QAPP

1221 Groundwater Sample CoUection Groundwater for this study was coUected from

weUs MW-IA and ME-8 as shown on Figure 1-2 iMW-lA was chosen as a sampling

location because it was determined to be one of the most contaminated weUs on-site based

on previous investigations During the course of the treatabiUty study a decision was made

to obtain samples from ME-8 because results of the most recent sampling effort conducted by

ICF indicated that groundwater from this weU contained approximately 200 xgL vinyl

chloride whereas groundwater from MW-IA no longer contained any quantifiable amount

Removal of vinyl chloride by aeration needed to be demonstrated during this investigation

because vinyl chloride is not effectively removed by carbon adsorption

Groundwater samples were obtained on four separate occasions during the study as shown in

Table 1-5 On each occasion the groundwater was coUected in accordance with the Field

Sampling Plan Three weU volumes of water were purged from the weU using a centrifiigal

pump before any samples were coUected The pH temperature and conductivity of the

purge water was measured after each weU volume untU the measured values differed by less

than 10 for three consecutive samples to ensure the sample drawn was representative of the

water in the aquifer Samples for the metals precipitation and filtration study were coUected

using a centrifugal pump Samples for the air stripping and carbon adsorption study were

coUected with a teflon baUer to minimize aeration and possible loss of volatUes during

sample coUection

The samples were coUected in one gallon amber glass bottles and stored at 4degC Each

sample bottle wasfiUed to exclude a headspace in the bottle

e 10

200 200

SCALE IN FEET

D CAP ROCK SAMPLE LOCATION

bull WELLS

nOURE 1-2 GROUNDWATER AND TRENCH AND CAP

ROCK SAMPLING LOCATIONS

11

E T C A L F a EDDY

c TABLE 1-5 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING SUMMARY

Mode of Date WeU Amount Sampled pH Temp degC Conductivity SampUng

11392 MW-IA 10 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm pump

12792 MW-IA 16 gaUons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20392 MW-IA 16 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20592 ME-8 2 gallons 64 8deg 230 umhocm baUer

1222 Precipitation Testing

General Chemical precipitation for the removal of metals was evaluated at three pH values

and three polymer dosages to determine the effectiveness of the treatment A preliminary

evaluation of different coagulants and polymers was conducted at three pH values by

r Metcalf amp Eddy personnel and a leading polymer vendor to determine which chemicals could

potentiaUy be used to precipitate groundwater Based on the results from the preliminary

evaluation jar tests were conducted by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel to aid in the determination

of the chemical dosages required to optimize the effectiveness of precipitation

Polymer and Coagulent Testing Polymer testing was performed by Metcalf amp Eddy and a

leading polymer vendor at the ENSECO laboratory faciUty in Cambridge Massachusetts

The effectiveness of anionic cationic and nonioiuc polymer was evaluated at three pH

values The best polymer was determined to be Drewfloc 2270 a low charge anionic high

molecular weight polymer This polymer was used in jar tests 1 through 5 The best

coagulent was determined to be Charge Pack 12 (CP-12) a higher charge cationic low

molecular weight coagulent The CP-12 coagulent was used in jar tests 1 through 5

described under jar testing

12 c

InitiaUy the effects of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was investigated Tests c were conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 with sodium hydroxide which had the best

settling characteristics based on visual observation and turbidity measurement Each polymer

was then tested at pH = 100 to evaluate Us effectiveness under optimum pH conditions

A formula of polymer and coagulant addition was developed based on visual observations

suspended soUds and turbidity analyses performed on each sample generated during the

investigation The anionic polymer effectively flocculated the existing smaU suspended

particles and the addkion of cationic coagulant removed iron and color when the pH was

raised to 100

Jar Testing Five jar tests were performed using the polymer and coagulants determined to

be effective during preliminary testing Jar tests 1 and 4 were conducted as dupUcates at

ph 10 Jar test 2 was conducted at pH 9 jar test 3 was conducted at pH 8 and jar test 5 was

conducted at pH 10 On each occasion prior to beginning the jar test the raw groundwater

was brought tol5deg-17degCina warm water bath The temperature was held constant to c eliminate the effects of temperature on reaction rates and solubUity

The foUowing is a description of activities conducted during the jar tests fti through 4 See

Figure 1-1 for details Four samples were evaluated during each jar test For each jar test

four 15 Uter beakers were fiUed with 1 Uter of raw groundwater The beakers were placed

on the stirrer platform and the paddles were lowered into the sample The jar stirrer was

operated at 80 revolutions per minute (rpm) The pH was then adjusted to the desired value

(pH = 10 9 8 10 for Tests 1 2 3 4) with a lime slurry in two samples and with a

sodium hydroxide solution (25) in the remaining two samples Lime was added to

investigate its effects on the precipitate and to evaluate its effectiveness in pH adjustment

The cationic coagulant was then added to each sample untU the concentration in solution was

30 mgL The solution was stirred at 80 rpm for 2 minutes to ensure complete mixing The

polymer was then added to one sample pH adjusted with sodium hydroxide and one sample

pH adjusted with lime Mixing continued for two minutes Next the solution was stirred

13 c

slowly orflocculated for five minutes at 20 rpm FinaUy the solutions were aUowed to

c settle for 10 minutes Visual observations were recorded and samples were submitted for

suspended soUds turbidity and metals analyses

Jar test 5 was performed to assess the removal of manganese and aluminum by preaeration

and permanganate additions (see Figure 1-1) Because no significant benefit was observed in

the previous tests when lime was used instead of sodium hydroxide sodium hydroxide was

used to adjust the pH in aU four samples to a pH of 100 in jar test 5 Only sodium

hydroxide was added to the groundwater in the first jar to determine the removal of

manganese and aluminum attributable to the formation of an insoluble salt at high pH

Sodium hydroxide and polymer were added to the second jar to evaluate the effectiveness of

the polymer Sodium hydroxide polymer and coagulant were added to sample 4 The

supemate from sample 4 was then fUtered This was performed to determine if the required

removal efficiencies could be achieved by chemical precipitation and filtration

Permanganate was added to sample 3 in addition to sodium hydroxide coagulant and

polymer to determine if the manganese and aluminum present could be chemicaUy oxidized c to a less soluble state which would enhance the efficiency of fUtration The supemate was

then siphoned off using clean tygon tubing and a syringe into the sample containers

Samples were submitted for metals suspended soUds and turbidity as illustrated on

Figure 1-1

1223 Filtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was perfonned to determine the

optimum pore size of filter media that could effectively remove the suspended soUds in the

precipitated groundwater The determination of the removal efficiency for each filter was

based on the concentration of suspended soUds and turbidity of the filtered water The time

required to filter the groundwater was also evaluated

Prior to filtration the metals in the groundwater were precipitated and coagulent and polymer

were added using the optimum conditions developed during the precipitation study The

optimum conditions consisted of pH adjustment to 10 with sodium hydroxide addition of

14 c

coagulent CP-12 to a concentration of one percent and addition of Drewfloc 2270 polymer to

c a concentration of 10 mgl Three grades (10 xm 5 xm and 1 xm pore sizes) of filter

paper were used with a Buchner ftmnel to filter aUquots of the precipitated groundwater

Samples of the filtered water were submitted to ENSECO for suspended soUds and turbidity

analysis

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge was coUected during the treatability study The

sludge sample was submitted to the CLP system for PCB and metals analysis so that a

characterization of the sludge could be made and disposal options could be evaluated

1224 Air Stripping Testing Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at three

different air to water ratios to determine the most effective stripping ratio To ensure that

worst case volatUe organic compound concentrations were present in the samples for this

study some modifications were made in how the sample was coUected and treated First

the groundwater was coUected with a baUer to prevent the loss of volatUes AdditionaUy the

water was fUtered under positive pressure foUowing the precipitation step to minimize the c loss of volatUes that would result if the water was filtered using a vacuum pump

An aquarium pump tygon tubing and aeration stone with a glass-fiber fUter cartridge was

used to aerate 1-Uter aUquots of precipitated and filtered groundwater The aeration flow

rate was caUbrated by filling a graduated cylinder with air that had been filled with tap water

and inverted in a water bath The air was diffused at 375 missec into 1-Uter aUquots of

groundwater and the time measured as iUustrated in Table 1-6 The aerated groundwater was

submitted to ENSECO for volatUe organics analysis

1225 Carbon Adsorption Testing The effectiveness of activated carbon for the removal

of organic compounds in the groundwater at the site was evaluated The carbon used was

the powdered activated 325 mesh carbon suppUed by Calgon Corporation The groundwater

samples used for this investigation were obtained and filtered as described in the air stripping

15 c

c

c

TABLE 1-6 AERATION TEST OPERATIONS

Air to Water Ratio Volume Volume of by Volume of Water Air Reqd Min of Aeration

251 1000 ml 25000 ml 111 501 1000 ml 50000 ml 222 751 1000 ml 75000 ml 333

section of this report to minimize the loss of volatUes A total of twelve samples were mn

during this investigation The necessity of air stripping was investigated by comparing the

resuUs from four samples that were air stripped to seven samples that were treated identicaUy

with the exception of air stripping AU samples for the air stripping comparison went

through the precipitation filtration and carbon adsorption processes AdditionaUy one

sample was prepared with no carbon added to serve as an untreated sample The samples are

summarized in Table 1-7 Each groundwater sample was prepared and mixed with a

predetermined dose of Calgon powdered 325 mesh activated carbon and placed m an open

Erlenmyer flask on a shaker table for a two-hour time period at 180 rpm A rotary shaker

table capable of accommodating twelve (12)-1000 ml Erlenmyer flasks was used Effluent

was fUtered with a barrel filter using a glass-fiber pre-fUter and a Whatman 45 micron

membrane The effluent clear and odorless in aU cases was added to sample containers

preserved and packed for shipment to CLP laboratories Since the shaker table could

accommodate 12 flasks a total of approximately 4 gaUons of effluent was generated during

each mn Several mns were performed to generate adequate quantities of sample for

analysis accordmg to Table 1-7 Groundwater was simUarly prepared for submittal to

Aquatec Lab in Burlington Vermont for chronic toxicity testing Three (3) shipments of

approximately 2 gaUons each were made

r 16

C) o o TABLE 1-7 CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation Filtration Aeration amp Carbon

AC-1 05 V SV MET 3400 3 1067 054 AC-2 20 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 22 AC-3 50 V SV MET 3400 3 1133 57 AC-4 100 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 110 AC-5 Trip Blank 0 V

Precipitation Filtration amp Carbon

C-0 0 V 500 1 500 0

C-1 05 V SV MET 3200 3 1067 053

c-2 10 V PCB 2200 2 1100 11

C-3 20 V SV CT 29000 24 1250 25

C-4 50 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 55

C-17 70 V MET 1200 1 1200 70

C-18 100 V SV 2200 2 1100 110

C-13 Treatability Blank 0 V PCB 2200 0 0 0

C-20 Trip Blank 0 V 0

C-10 Duplicate of C-1 05 SV 2000 2 1000 05

C-1 05 (MSMSD) 500 1 500 025

C-11 Duplicate of C-1 05 MET 1000 1 1000 05

C-20 Duplicate of C-2 10 V PCB (MSMSD)

4400 4 1100 11

C-16 Duplicate of C-4 50 PCB 2000 2 1000 50

C-6 0 PCB 2000 2 1000 0

17

o o n TABLE 1-7 (Continued) CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation amp Filtration

PPF-1 V SV MET PCB 2000 2 1000 0

Sludge

Sludge-1 0 MET PCB 0

V = VolatUe organics SV = Semivolatile organics MET = Metals PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls CT = Chronic toxicity MSMSD = Matrix spikematrix spike dup D = DupUcate TB = Trip blank PPF = Precipitated and pressure filtered

(to minimize volatUes loss as opposed to vacuum filtration)

18

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

10 GROUNDWATER

11 INTERIM STUDY

111 Introduction and Objectives

Performance of the pumping test phase of the hydrogeologic investigation at the Norwood

PCB site resulted in the accumulation of approximately 25000 gaUons of contaminated

groundwater In order to properly dispose of this contaminated groundwater a Phase I bench

scale treatabUity study was undertaken The objective of the treatabiUty study was to

determine whether two unit operations filtration and carbon adsorption would be effective

in treating the contaminated groundwater so that it could be discharged to the Neponset River

under a temporary permit without any adverse effects to human health or the environment

112 Description of Work

c On August 28 1991 a sample of groundwater was coUected from the Norwood PCB site for

use in the Phase I bench-scale treatability study The sample was coUected from WeU

MW-IA one of the most contaminated weUs at the Norwood PCB site The Phase I

groundwater treatability study was conducted and sample analysis performed during

September 1991 at Hydrosample Laboratory in Northboro Massachusetts

The groundwater sampling and the generation of the treatability samples was conducted in

accordance with the Interim Pre-Design Work Plan No 3 Phase I for the temporary

groundwater treatment plant Three different pore size or particle retention grades of fUter

paper were evaluated for filtration rate and PCB removal The coarse Whatman filter had a

pore size of 10 microns the medium had a pore size of 5 microns and the fine had a pore

size of 1 micron These sizes were chosen because they are the smaUest commerciaUy

avaUable sizes The filtration unit operation was evaluated both as the only treatment

technique and as the initial operation in a filtration carbon adsorption treatment scheme

1 c

c

c

For an evaluation of the carbon adsorption unit operation samples of the three fUtrates were

percolated through a 1 glass column charged with Calgon brand activated carbon Calgons

powdered activated 325 mesh carbon was recommended by Calgon for use in the bench-

scale studies because it decreases the contact time required for adsorption and can be filtered

out of the groundwater with a 045 micron pore size filter Each fUtrate was subjected to the

same carbon treatment The flow rate through the carbon column was adjusted to simulate

the fuU scale onsite carbon adsorption flow rate

113 Results

The results of the Phase I treatability study showed that PCBs the contaminants of greatest

concem were not removed by the filtration unit operation when it was employed as the only

treatment technique This indicates that the PCBs were dissolved or adhered to suspended

material finer than the smaUest commerciaUy avaUable filter pore size and that filtration

alone carmot remove PCBs to the cleanup level Activated carbon is necessary to achieve

PCB cleanup levels

The PCB results from the filtered carbon adsorbed samples indicated that the carbon

removed aU of the PCBs to a concentration of less than 05 xgL The analytical data was

vaUdated using the Data QuaUty Objective (DQO) Level HI criteria outlined in the

Groundwater Bench-Scale Phase I treatability Study QuaUty Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)

All of the analytical data was determined to be vaUd The PCB analytical resuUs are

presented in Table 1-1

One sample of the treated groundwater discharge from the interim treatment operation was

coUected on November 25 1991 The sample was analyzed and found to contain less than

050 jugL PCBs This sample was also analyzed for the twenty three Target Analyte List

(TAL) metals All of the metals concentrations were below the discharge limits calculated

based on AWQC and the flow rate of the discharge and the Neponset River See Tables 1-2

c

c

c

TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF PCB RESULTS FOR PHASE I TREATABILITY SAMPLES

Aroclor 1254 Surrogate Recoveries Concentration xgL TCMX DBC

Initial Sample 48 J 26 93 (Settled Decanted)

Coarse FUtered 63 J 57 102

Coarse FUtered DupUcate 79 140 105

Medium FUtered 59 61 108

Fine FUtered 52 78 97

Coarse FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 75 105

Medium FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 72 92

Fine FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 101

Method Blank 050 UJ 58

Pump Equipment Blank 050 UJ 36 110

TCMX = 2 4 5 6 tetrachlorometaxylene CLP 390 SOW Advisory Recovery Range 60 shy150

DBC = Dibutylchlorendate CLP 288 SOW Advisory Recovery Range 24-154

A non-PCB positive interfering compound coeluted with the DBC surrogate in the method blank therefore the surrogate recovery could not be quantitated

Aroclors 1221 1232 1242 1248 and 1260 were nondetected (050 U) in aU samples

Coarse FUter 10 micron pore size Medium FUter 5 micron pore size Fine FUter 1 micron pore size

c

o C) o TABLE 1-2 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER WITH EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

bull v - o x - - - - - - - - bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - - bull bull bull

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull gt bull bull bull bull gt bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull o gt pMWmmmXiiizz-mm^ 4SoSiSSiyS iSs DAILY - AVQ ^bull sectMMMsectMM mM i^i^^^^

W^MM^0 i ^^ ^ i ^ ^ ) ) ^ ^ ^ ^

liffiSaiArtiMifiig wampsectii^i9MMzWMM^lt

i 0 t M B W ^ SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE

-yio|ijMi i|5|laquoiilifc^ li^Oimim

PHASEn PHASE I PHASE

SURFACE BEDROCK BEDROCK

SjiA3tliilAM|li-^ isiowfciili^rBo^

(van) (uan) (uou

PHASEE

BEDROCK

fuow

iiHiisii BEDROCK

iiiiiiiiiixiii ixc ilfeiiili f-iO(3Msect

Wyt(Bm m^mmM miimmiM camamm WmM-M

|ii|iiiU-S |JipSEsiit||l ^ ^

Mi(iiteiii iciiiiitiii f-Wi^WM

ilii^y^iii illi^i^liliiiSl-liN lGipilaquooiraquoi|i|ii| ^^^ljMm$m-

MAXIMUM

EFFLUENT

DISCHARGE

bull^ bull bull L E V E L bullbullbull

(U6L) (8gt(gt)

MONTHLY

EFFLUENT

DISCHAROE

bull iLEVEL bullbull

(tlOLi (8)(9)

bull||yensi|| W0fW^iz

DISCHAROE

sectBlWW$W ( U a U (8)(9)

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull

iiil iW^

VOLATILE OROANICS

111-TricUoiocthuie 3 3 - - NC NC 170000 NC NC 68850000

M^iM^l ia i t i^^ W MMf ^ ^ i ^ M

Vinyl Chloride

mMWMimMilBMMM iil|||i||i||i|||||

14 14 73

SSi5i5

W S X i i m S M 120 23 6S 110

bull -

bull bull T

no

Wfimmim ISiMBB

NC

llliNGSM iiiipltiiii

NC

bulliiSfi4i|ii-

li PIiAlio|jifshy-3250

mimpmamp wwrnmim-NC

ampampllz-^f^C

Wwyen WM NC

170100

bull bull bull bull shy bull ^ raquo - S 5 lt gt

2126250

12-Dieliloroethene (toUl) 77 300 199 560 44 68 43 no 11600 (13) NC 1400000 (4) 4698000 NC 567000000

|||iiSi^i||laquo|||ii^^^^^^^^

Xylenei (total)

kz^z23i(iwMitiMM^^ W0$0Tisectsectg^^

6 6 shy

|isii7Pois

WlampMlMampW0 - shy shy shy

i-wip

-

z4smmm lmm0(M

NC

sSiiiraquolii(i)l iilltlaquoili

NC

i--iii ii -^lli||Piiiii

NC

ioisiaiiiSipop lsectfiMm

NC

i-Mti969M)

i - zF ^M SC

372ib0

$$laquo43

NC

bullWz-i

SEMIVOLATILES

23S-Trichioioi)beaol 10 10 - - NC NC NC NC NC NC

j|NiiwUfl|ropw^^

13-Dictiloiobeiizeiie

sectMimiMmm^ i|il||||iii|i||i

4 4 shy

i-siJ(t| ii|i WSMWiMMMiWMMM^

-

WMsect M WBWWrshy-

MiMxim- $MM^Mz

NO

m-z^mmi m^msmm NC

IM---iiiMMM WzMW Sk

2600

|Siii laquowq zz^Wlt^^

NC

bullMz-zziMii WzlMM

NC

kiMAz-iMampi WmtW^

1053000

14-Dichlorobenzeiie 14 14 48 67 shy shy shy - NC NC 2600 NC NC 1053000

| i i | l i t j | i i | i | ^

ii|ii|llllilill^ bullimMmMMiiMWMM ghif^m^MmMmiM^

iSmMMyMMsectsectMfziM^ i||||i|i |i|j|||^

bulliMMiiM ^zZ^ZzZZZZ^

^ --zllMMmd |sii|i|ii|

- ISSiiii lls-^iiil

i^iMM^i-iM wiiiW^Sz

iliiO-ii i l- iif-iiiii

WM--z ampiM fampMM

f bull iSilwiobtti

|i|3jl|i|

P C B I

Aioclor-1254 34 180 26 89 64 8 24 27 20 fT) 0014 CT) 00045 810 57 18 AF

secti^^MMMampMM^^ Aroclor-1254 (paper-filtered)

Arociot-124S

BM iM-mi-MmsectMMMiz iiili|iiililiiiliiliiiii

- - l i

liJii -rilSiiiiiil

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii l-l il shy shy -

ilJi|i i-sectsectMBsect i

-

j 0 lt7) iOjCT)

20 (7)

Oi014 (7)

001 (7)

0014 CD

immmmB WMi^MampMi

00IM5

MM--zMshyi bulll l i l i |iloi

^

-bull-iigtM

WsectM0-amp 57

nzzmmm mlBWM

18

V

Aroclof-1248 (ghit-filteRd) 4 4 shy shy shy - 20 (7) 0014 CT) 00045 810 57 18 F

Phaie I RI umpling conducted in May 1988 Phaae II RI lampling conducted in April 1989

NC bull No criteria cxitta for thia compound

(1) Inaufficient Data to Develop Criteria Value preaented ia LOEL shy Loweit Obierved Effect Level

(2) Value preaented for carelnogeiia ia the 10-5 level

(3) Value preaented ia for dichloroethenea

(4) Value preieoted ia for trana 12-dichloroetliene

(5) pH dependent criteria (78 pH uted)

(6) Value preaented ia for chlorinated benzenea

(7) Value presented ia for total PCBa

(8) Effluent DiKhaige Limit based upon an effluent discharge of 5 gpm to the Neponset River during the 7-day low flow lOyr recurrence (2O20gpm)

USGS Pleasant Street Oauging Station on the Neponset River

(9) Dilution factor =[(5gpm+2020gpm)5gpml= 405

(lO)Concentration exceeds effluent discharge limit contaminant must be removed by Groundwater Treatment Plant before discharge to surface water [D=DAILY MAX A=AVG MONTHLY F=FISH]

-

-

-

- - -

-

-

-

-

-

o n o TABLE 1-3 COMPARISON OF METAL CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER WFTH EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull bull bull bull gt gt bull gt bull bull bull bull bull - bull bulliii|vO|| iS iggJMLnei i iaD s-UNFILTEREDgssHis M-B33nsRmmMMM D A I L Y iiiiiiiiiiiiiAVGiiiiii |i mmmmMmmm Xy lira^li P H A S E I WtiiMM liwiAiiiii iiiiimiii iii-pHiwiiliiiii WampMM P H A S E I ilii iiwgiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiili|i| iiii iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii M A X I M U M iiiiipifriiii^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiiifiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

555^gt5^5V555^^^^ i i i ilaquoiij S U R F A C E m m m Wtm^itM B E D R O C K bull bull gt f t bullbullbull B E D R O C K iiiFRiiliiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiijsiiiiiriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii|iiiiiiliiiiiiii E F F L U E N T E F F L U E N T E F F L U E N T iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii wmmm |||ii||li| |i IliAiiiiil WliampiMM liiiiltiilii^isiiii liiiiifctAXliii iiiAiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^i^iibhreiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii liiiiiii iiHiiiiiiiiiiiiii- D I S C H A R O E D I S C H A R O E D I S C H A R O E iiiii imm^mi mmmn WmMm WBrnB

PARAlt4ETER W iMmm iiiiiiiii iiitjiiiii Wi^MMM iiii iiiiiiiiilii iiiaraquoliiii W-imMMi iiiiiiaiiiii mMmmmm iCSiiMAiiiiii O O N S U M P iiiiiiiVEitiiii liiiiisyifeEiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiitiiiiL iiii cii^i iiiiiifl|5iili iiiiiiili (UOW iiiiiiii (oon) iiiiult3piili (UOL) lzMcii0m (UGL) iipiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|^(Siliiiiiiiiii|iiiiii (UOL) (2) (UOL) (6)C7) (IKJL) (6)C7) (UOn) (6) C7) i^iipi

M E T A L S

A h m i n u m 154000 390000 119 352 12500 43900 74 77 NA NA NA NC NC NC

i^poundi1i liiiiiii^iii iiiiiiiPi iii|ilsi iliiiJsiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iii-iili liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii-raquoiiiilti)ij^i JiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiW)i(5i iiiiiiiiiiiiii6Pigtiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiS5iraquoii)i iiiiiitiraquo50 iiiiii3f laquoltraquollishyJ^Sn^iii-illii iiiillifil II |-Iilliiii WlampMi liiliii-ii iiiiiiiifiiiiiili 22a iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii^iiiliiiiiii iiiiiiiiN iiiiiiliiiiiiiii iii-iiiiiiiiiii ifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii fiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiii i iiiiii i j ^ i iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiip iiiiiiiii Bar ium 690 1640 67 2laquo9 53 147 97 19 NC NC NC (5) NC NC NC Beryll ium 18 32 130 (1) 53 (1) 131 52650 2147 531

|^i^ii|litx i s bull liillliSi ZZZZZZZZZ i|||i-^i - iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiii --i|yiiiWi iiiifslt^laquoiiiiiii3jiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiltfcjii i(3yiiiliii iiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiJC iiii-S iifiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMi iiiiiiilii154- bull i i - i i6laquo856i mzMkm iiiiiiiliiii ii|iijji||ii|||i 9lMMi MmiMi zZ^ mm iiiiiiiifi li^iiiiiiiiiraquoliiii 33100 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilMi^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiieiiiii^iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Pi iiiiiiiiiiiiNti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij^i

Chromium 206 526 1 8 18 34 104 16 W 11 (4) 3200 (4) 648b 4455 1296000 -Cobal t 113 295 19 22 36 40 NC NC NC NC NC NC

fMgtimi-^ztm zmisectmi iMiMM wmmi M^iiiiampii iiJiiM 189 iiiiiiiiiisiiiiiilaquo3iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifii iiiiiiiiiiiliiiii^-iiiii isiiiiiiiiiiisiiiii CJiiiiiijiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiStCiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM bullsiiiii iiiiiiili5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiigtireii iiiiiiii-shy bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull iiiiiiliiiiiiWiii bull bull laquo raquo - iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiilifii iiiiiiiiiiii iii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii l i i i i i i i i i i^ i l l l i s i i iiiiii i-iiiiiiiSiiiiiiisiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|fltii- 405000 iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiwii iiiiAiiishymBmmm imampmm WmMM Wimm iiiiillili iiiiiiiiliiiiiii

Lead 43 i t3 21 168 l i 37 30 168 14 (3) 054 p) NC 5670 219 NC

Magnes ium 42400 148000 3950 8990 8630 21100 5040 11200 NC NC NC NC NC NC

iiititlj^iusibiii^j iilllJii^ -M-W^M iiiiiiii^^i^ ii-|7laquo- L5W iiiiiiiiiiiiiilliiifii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiltiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii ii5iiiiiiie iiiiiiiiiiii bullbull bull l t raquo iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNC iiiiiiii isci i i i | | i i i | | i p i i II0M^I iiiiiliiiiiiiiilii WM^MmM ilillilflil i | | | l il |o| | l i i l i P liiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiip8iii bullbull ( U si i l i l i iiiiii- iiii-li|i5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiipiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiii -i- o-iil bull iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiii laquoiii

Nicke l 164 452 64 104 643 (3) 33 (3) 3800 260415 13365 1539000 -Potaaaium 13100 33400 2800 5420 4580 9790 3280 5780 NC NC NC NC NC NC

i|i3laquo|i |s||i ilsectiampim illii|li MmMm iiliil|^i7ii il-lii^|iiraquoiii- (iiltii iliiiiiii^iiiiili^^^ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiii2iwiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiliis lt 6800 ii5iiiiiiiyilaquoJpll i iiiiiiiiiifiiil ^iiilOWi iiiiiii3^lHWraquoi iiiiii--i

|i|||ii Iliii illl|iillSI |illliSl^| illillaquoii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiliiltiii laquo raquo iiiiiiiiiiiii||i||| iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii|i|ltoigttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiliiiiilii iiiiiiiiiiiii bull^bull i l iNc| i-|iiiii -i-iii ii gti5 i iiiiiiiili^^ iiiiiiiiiiii Oiiiiiiii|i bulliiiiiiii Sodium 14100 28900 12500 26raquo00 16320 33200 16300 68000 N c NC NC Nc NC Nc Thal l ium 10 10 58 10 1400 (1) 40 (1) 32 567000 16200 1296

igtPiiiilli MmmmiM liilililil iiliiiiisii iii|ii| bulliiii iiiiiisiiilii iiiiiiiiiiiii|i ii^|i iiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii iiiiiiii ii^iliiiiiiiNiilliiiiiiiji- bulli|iiiiiflaquoSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii|lNe-|i-ii iiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Nc iiiiiii liiNCii iiiiiii iiiiiiiilifiei iiiii iiiiiii iilaquo|||il| mmmmi m m m i M iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisil i iiiisiiiiilllii iiiiliiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiitii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiii iiiiiiliili-|s4ii iiilliiiiiiii ssiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii^^iii-iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii 13365 iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiip^ P b a i e I RI sampling conducted in M a y 1988 Phase II RI samplmg conducted in Apri l 1989

N C = N o cri teria exiata for th is compotmd

N A = N o t Available

(1) Insufficient Data to Develop Cri ter ia Value presented is L O E L - Lowest Observed Effect Level

(2) Value preaented for careinogena ia the 10-S level

(3) Hardness dependent c r i te r ia (25 mgA C A C 0 3 uaed)

(4) Value presented is for Ihe m o r e toxic hexavalent form

(5) Value presented is proposed (more conservat ive)

(6) Effluent Discharge L imi t dilution factor based upon an effluent discbarge of 5 gpm to the Neponse t River during the 7 - d a y low flow lOyr recurrence (2020gpm)

USOS Pleasant Street Oaug ing atation on the Neponset River

(7) Dilut ion factor =[(Sgpm+2020gpm)Sgpm]= 405

(lO)Concentration exceeds effluent discharge limit contaminant must be removed by Groundwate r Treatment Plant before discharge to Ihe Neponset River [ D = D A I L Y M A X A = A V O M O N T H L Y F=FISH]

c and 1-3 for effluent (Uscharge limits for organic and inorganic compounds An acute toxicity

test showed that no toxic effect was observed for the interim treatment discharge

114 Conclusions

Based on the results of the Phase I bench scale treatabUity study the combined unit

operations of fUtration foUowed by carbon adsorption were effective in treating the

contaminated groundwater coUected during the pumping tests for temporary discharge to the

Neponset River A sample of the discharge was coUected during the groundwater treatment

and it was found to contain less than the quantitation limit of 05 xgL of PCB The metals

concentrations were aU determined to be below the discharge criteria A sample was also

coUected and submitted for an acute toxicity determination The resuUs showed that no toxic

effect was observed The bench scale treatability results and the on-line discharge analyses

demonstrate that the filtration and carbon adsorption unit operations were effective temporary

treatment techniques

^ 12 FULL SCALE STUDY

A groundwater treatability study was conducted to evaluate the performance of four different

treatment processes on contaminated groundwater obtained from the Norwood PCB site The

contaminants present in the groundwater were determined during previous studies conducted

in May 1988 and AprU 1989 by EBASCO Chapter 1 of the Final FeasibUity Study

(EBASCO 1989c) contains an overview of the results obtained during these investigations

Based on the resuUs of the May 1988 and AprU 1989 field investigations EPA concluded

that the overburden and bedrock aquifers beneath the site were contaminated with

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and volatUe and semivolatile organic compounds (VOCs

and SVOCs) It was determined that surficial and subsurface soUs dredge pUes of sediments

taken from Meadow Brook sediments in Meadow Brook and sediments in the drainage

system of the buUding operated by Grant Gear were the sources of the contamination In

r

c September 1989 EPA released the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Norwood PCB site In

the ROD EPA directed that groundwater be treated with a system including activated carbon

air stripping with vapor controls and precipitationfiltration iEPA also directed that

treatability studies or pUot studies be conducted to aid in the overaU design of the system

In accordance with the ROD a bench scale treatabUity study was conducted at the ENSECO

Laboratory Facility in Cambridge Massachusetts by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel between

January 14 and February 16 1992 This report presents a description of the work

completed resuUs and conclusions of the study

121 Objectives

The fuU-scale groundwater treatability study was conducted to determine if treatment

consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping and carbon adsorption would effectively

remove the contamination present in the groundwater at the Norwood PCB site to appUcable

standards Information on the percent reduction of organic and inorganic compounds in the

groundwater volume type of residual and byproducts produced by each component were

also investigated A schematic detailing the treatability study and the sampling and analysis

conducted is presented in Figure 1-1

122 Description of Work

The treatability study was performed in accordance with Pre-Design Work Plan 3 and the

QuaUty Assurance Project Plan for the Phase n Bench-Scale TreatabiUty Study (Work

Plan 3)

Groundwater samples were coUected from the Norwood PCB site for use in this

investigation Interim sampling was performed on effluent streams generated from each

bench-scale process for analysis according to Table 1-4 Influent and final effluent samples

generated during the groundwater treatabiUty were coUected and analyzed through the CLP

^

o JAR TESTING SAMPLE ID

o

POLYMER TESTING

RAW GROUNDWATER

VOL 1 SVOL I p PCB f ^ ^ METALS

mdash SST

T

T

T

SS - Choose Polymer T ar)d Dose Estimate pH pf i After Coagu lant

Jar Test 1 PH10 bull

Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

Ume wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

Jar Test 2 pH9

Jar Test 3 pH8

bull

Lime w C oag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

JT1 -1 shy

j r i -2 shy

JT1 -3 shy

JTI-4

j r 2 - 1

JT2-2 shy

JT2-3

j r2-4 bull

JT3-1 shy

JT3-2shy

JT3-3 bull

JT3-4 shy

HLTRATION TESTING

RIter Paper 1 - SS T Time mdash |

RIter Paper 2 - SS T Time-

Rlter Paper 3 - SS T Time -

CtHXise Filter Paper or Particle Retention Size

Sample Well Using Bailer

VOL SVOL PCB CLPMETALS (PPF-1)

Precipitate and Filter Using Optimized Polymer pH Coagulant and Filter

lt

AIR STRIPPING

AJrWater Ratio 1

AirWater Ratio 2

AirWater Ratio3 ~

VOLmdash1

-VOL

-VOLmdash

SAMPLE ID CARBON ADSORPTION (All by CLP)

Carbon mdashVOL SVOL Metals AC-1

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-2

Dose 3 mdash ^ deg shy reg ^ deg ^^reg ^ ^

Carbon

Dose1

Carbon Dose 2

Cartwn

Dose 4

Cartxjn Dose 1

Carbon Dose2~

Carbon Dose 3

Carbon Dose4~

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-4

-VOL C-1

-VOL SVOL Metals C-2

-VOL PCB C-3

bull VOL SVOL Chronic Toxicity C-4

Jar Test 4 pH 10 Dup

bull

- Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

Jr4-1

JT4-2

JT4-3

Carbon Doses

Cartxgtn Dose 6

-VOL SVOL PCB

mdash VOL Metals

C-5

C-6

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals JT4-4

VOL = Volatile Organics SVOL = Semi Volatile Organics

Carbon Dose 7

mdashVOL SVOL C-7

SS = Suspended Solids

NaOH-MNAL JT5-1 T = Turbidity

Jar Test 5 pHIO

NaOH - wPolymer - MN AL

NaOH wPoly wCoag RItered - MN AL

JT5-2

JT5-3

NaOH wPdy wCoag Aerated andRItered - MN AL

JT5-4

^ NaOH wPdy wCoag PermanganateRItered - MN M

JT5-5

J O Special FIGURE 1-1 TREATABILITY STUDY

Optimize pH Decide Ume or NaOH

SAMPUNG AND ANALYSIS SCHEMATIC

Compare Polymer vs Coagulant

(J DF222658HW

c

c

TABLE 1-4 TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Number Bench Scale Process

Groundwater Treatability Study

Initial Groundwater

Preliminary Polymer Testing

Precipitation Supemant

FUtration Effluent

Metals Sludge Precipitated and FUtered Effluent with Groundwater CoUected with BaUer

Air Stripping Effluent

Air Stripped Carbon Adsorption Effluent

Non Air Stripped Carbon Effluent

Sludge Sample

Rock Washing Study

Initial Rocks Initial Gravel from roof Stone from Cap Washed Rocks Washed Stones

Samples

1

1 1

16 16 16

3 3

1 2 2 2

3

4 4 2 2

7 4 2 2 1 1

3 5 6 3 1

Analysis

VolatUes SemivolatUes PCB Metals Suspended SoUds pH Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity Metals VolatUe Organics

Suspended SoUds TuAidity

PCB VolatUe Organics PCB SemivolatUe Organics

VolatUe Organics

SemivolatUe Organics VolatUe Organics Metals PCB

VolatUe Organics SemivolatUe Organics Metals PCB Chronic Toxicity PCBs Metals

PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB

Laboratory

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

c

c

c

system for volatUes semivolatUes PCBs and metals AU interim samples were analyzed at

ENSECO in Cambridge Massachusetts AU data was vaUdated by MampE according to the

QAPP

1221 Groundwater Sample CoUection Groundwater for this study was coUected from

weUs MW-IA and ME-8 as shown on Figure 1-2 iMW-lA was chosen as a sampling

location because it was determined to be one of the most contaminated weUs on-site based

on previous investigations During the course of the treatabiUty study a decision was made

to obtain samples from ME-8 because results of the most recent sampling effort conducted by

ICF indicated that groundwater from this weU contained approximately 200 xgL vinyl

chloride whereas groundwater from MW-IA no longer contained any quantifiable amount

Removal of vinyl chloride by aeration needed to be demonstrated during this investigation

because vinyl chloride is not effectively removed by carbon adsorption

Groundwater samples were obtained on four separate occasions during the study as shown in

Table 1-5 On each occasion the groundwater was coUected in accordance with the Field

Sampling Plan Three weU volumes of water were purged from the weU using a centrifiigal

pump before any samples were coUected The pH temperature and conductivity of the

purge water was measured after each weU volume untU the measured values differed by less

than 10 for three consecutive samples to ensure the sample drawn was representative of the

water in the aquifer Samples for the metals precipitation and filtration study were coUected

using a centrifugal pump Samples for the air stripping and carbon adsorption study were

coUected with a teflon baUer to minimize aeration and possible loss of volatUes during

sample coUection

The samples were coUected in one gallon amber glass bottles and stored at 4degC Each

sample bottle wasfiUed to exclude a headspace in the bottle

e 10

200 200

SCALE IN FEET

D CAP ROCK SAMPLE LOCATION

bull WELLS

nOURE 1-2 GROUNDWATER AND TRENCH AND CAP

ROCK SAMPLING LOCATIONS

11

E T C A L F a EDDY

c TABLE 1-5 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING SUMMARY

Mode of Date WeU Amount Sampled pH Temp degC Conductivity SampUng

11392 MW-IA 10 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm pump

12792 MW-IA 16 gaUons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20392 MW-IA 16 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20592 ME-8 2 gallons 64 8deg 230 umhocm baUer

1222 Precipitation Testing

General Chemical precipitation for the removal of metals was evaluated at three pH values

and three polymer dosages to determine the effectiveness of the treatment A preliminary

evaluation of different coagulants and polymers was conducted at three pH values by

r Metcalf amp Eddy personnel and a leading polymer vendor to determine which chemicals could

potentiaUy be used to precipitate groundwater Based on the results from the preliminary

evaluation jar tests were conducted by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel to aid in the determination

of the chemical dosages required to optimize the effectiveness of precipitation

Polymer and Coagulent Testing Polymer testing was performed by Metcalf amp Eddy and a

leading polymer vendor at the ENSECO laboratory faciUty in Cambridge Massachusetts

The effectiveness of anionic cationic and nonioiuc polymer was evaluated at three pH

values The best polymer was determined to be Drewfloc 2270 a low charge anionic high

molecular weight polymer This polymer was used in jar tests 1 through 5 The best

coagulent was determined to be Charge Pack 12 (CP-12) a higher charge cationic low

molecular weight coagulent The CP-12 coagulent was used in jar tests 1 through 5

described under jar testing

12 c

InitiaUy the effects of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was investigated Tests c were conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 with sodium hydroxide which had the best

settling characteristics based on visual observation and turbidity measurement Each polymer

was then tested at pH = 100 to evaluate Us effectiveness under optimum pH conditions

A formula of polymer and coagulant addition was developed based on visual observations

suspended soUds and turbidity analyses performed on each sample generated during the

investigation The anionic polymer effectively flocculated the existing smaU suspended

particles and the addkion of cationic coagulant removed iron and color when the pH was

raised to 100

Jar Testing Five jar tests were performed using the polymer and coagulants determined to

be effective during preliminary testing Jar tests 1 and 4 were conducted as dupUcates at

ph 10 Jar test 2 was conducted at pH 9 jar test 3 was conducted at pH 8 and jar test 5 was

conducted at pH 10 On each occasion prior to beginning the jar test the raw groundwater

was brought tol5deg-17degCina warm water bath The temperature was held constant to c eliminate the effects of temperature on reaction rates and solubUity

The foUowing is a description of activities conducted during the jar tests fti through 4 See

Figure 1-1 for details Four samples were evaluated during each jar test For each jar test

four 15 Uter beakers were fiUed with 1 Uter of raw groundwater The beakers were placed

on the stirrer platform and the paddles were lowered into the sample The jar stirrer was

operated at 80 revolutions per minute (rpm) The pH was then adjusted to the desired value

(pH = 10 9 8 10 for Tests 1 2 3 4) with a lime slurry in two samples and with a

sodium hydroxide solution (25) in the remaining two samples Lime was added to

investigate its effects on the precipitate and to evaluate its effectiveness in pH adjustment

The cationic coagulant was then added to each sample untU the concentration in solution was

30 mgL The solution was stirred at 80 rpm for 2 minutes to ensure complete mixing The

polymer was then added to one sample pH adjusted with sodium hydroxide and one sample

pH adjusted with lime Mixing continued for two minutes Next the solution was stirred

13 c

slowly orflocculated for five minutes at 20 rpm FinaUy the solutions were aUowed to

c settle for 10 minutes Visual observations were recorded and samples were submitted for

suspended soUds turbidity and metals analyses

Jar test 5 was performed to assess the removal of manganese and aluminum by preaeration

and permanganate additions (see Figure 1-1) Because no significant benefit was observed in

the previous tests when lime was used instead of sodium hydroxide sodium hydroxide was

used to adjust the pH in aU four samples to a pH of 100 in jar test 5 Only sodium

hydroxide was added to the groundwater in the first jar to determine the removal of

manganese and aluminum attributable to the formation of an insoluble salt at high pH

Sodium hydroxide and polymer were added to the second jar to evaluate the effectiveness of

the polymer Sodium hydroxide polymer and coagulant were added to sample 4 The

supemate from sample 4 was then fUtered This was performed to determine if the required

removal efficiencies could be achieved by chemical precipitation and filtration

Permanganate was added to sample 3 in addition to sodium hydroxide coagulant and

polymer to determine if the manganese and aluminum present could be chemicaUy oxidized c to a less soluble state which would enhance the efficiency of fUtration The supemate was

then siphoned off using clean tygon tubing and a syringe into the sample containers

Samples were submitted for metals suspended soUds and turbidity as illustrated on

Figure 1-1

1223 Filtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was perfonned to determine the

optimum pore size of filter media that could effectively remove the suspended soUds in the

precipitated groundwater The determination of the removal efficiency for each filter was

based on the concentration of suspended soUds and turbidity of the filtered water The time

required to filter the groundwater was also evaluated

Prior to filtration the metals in the groundwater were precipitated and coagulent and polymer

were added using the optimum conditions developed during the precipitation study The

optimum conditions consisted of pH adjustment to 10 with sodium hydroxide addition of

14 c

coagulent CP-12 to a concentration of one percent and addition of Drewfloc 2270 polymer to

c a concentration of 10 mgl Three grades (10 xm 5 xm and 1 xm pore sizes) of filter

paper were used with a Buchner ftmnel to filter aUquots of the precipitated groundwater

Samples of the filtered water were submitted to ENSECO for suspended soUds and turbidity

analysis

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge was coUected during the treatability study The

sludge sample was submitted to the CLP system for PCB and metals analysis so that a

characterization of the sludge could be made and disposal options could be evaluated

1224 Air Stripping Testing Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at three

different air to water ratios to determine the most effective stripping ratio To ensure that

worst case volatUe organic compound concentrations were present in the samples for this

study some modifications were made in how the sample was coUected and treated First

the groundwater was coUected with a baUer to prevent the loss of volatUes AdditionaUy the

water was fUtered under positive pressure foUowing the precipitation step to minimize the c loss of volatUes that would result if the water was filtered using a vacuum pump

An aquarium pump tygon tubing and aeration stone with a glass-fiber fUter cartridge was

used to aerate 1-Uter aUquots of precipitated and filtered groundwater The aeration flow

rate was caUbrated by filling a graduated cylinder with air that had been filled with tap water

and inverted in a water bath The air was diffused at 375 missec into 1-Uter aUquots of

groundwater and the time measured as iUustrated in Table 1-6 The aerated groundwater was

submitted to ENSECO for volatUe organics analysis

1225 Carbon Adsorption Testing The effectiveness of activated carbon for the removal

of organic compounds in the groundwater at the site was evaluated The carbon used was

the powdered activated 325 mesh carbon suppUed by Calgon Corporation The groundwater

samples used for this investigation were obtained and filtered as described in the air stripping

15 c

c

c

TABLE 1-6 AERATION TEST OPERATIONS

Air to Water Ratio Volume Volume of by Volume of Water Air Reqd Min of Aeration

251 1000 ml 25000 ml 111 501 1000 ml 50000 ml 222 751 1000 ml 75000 ml 333

section of this report to minimize the loss of volatUes A total of twelve samples were mn

during this investigation The necessity of air stripping was investigated by comparing the

resuUs from four samples that were air stripped to seven samples that were treated identicaUy

with the exception of air stripping AU samples for the air stripping comparison went

through the precipitation filtration and carbon adsorption processes AdditionaUy one

sample was prepared with no carbon added to serve as an untreated sample The samples are

summarized in Table 1-7 Each groundwater sample was prepared and mixed with a

predetermined dose of Calgon powdered 325 mesh activated carbon and placed m an open

Erlenmyer flask on a shaker table for a two-hour time period at 180 rpm A rotary shaker

table capable of accommodating twelve (12)-1000 ml Erlenmyer flasks was used Effluent

was fUtered with a barrel filter using a glass-fiber pre-fUter and a Whatman 45 micron

membrane The effluent clear and odorless in aU cases was added to sample containers

preserved and packed for shipment to CLP laboratories Since the shaker table could

accommodate 12 flasks a total of approximately 4 gaUons of effluent was generated during

each mn Several mns were performed to generate adequate quantities of sample for

analysis accordmg to Table 1-7 Groundwater was simUarly prepared for submittal to

Aquatec Lab in Burlington Vermont for chronic toxicity testing Three (3) shipments of

approximately 2 gaUons each were made

r 16

C) o o TABLE 1-7 CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation Filtration Aeration amp Carbon

AC-1 05 V SV MET 3400 3 1067 054 AC-2 20 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 22 AC-3 50 V SV MET 3400 3 1133 57 AC-4 100 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 110 AC-5 Trip Blank 0 V

Precipitation Filtration amp Carbon

C-0 0 V 500 1 500 0

C-1 05 V SV MET 3200 3 1067 053

c-2 10 V PCB 2200 2 1100 11

C-3 20 V SV CT 29000 24 1250 25

C-4 50 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 55

C-17 70 V MET 1200 1 1200 70

C-18 100 V SV 2200 2 1100 110

C-13 Treatability Blank 0 V PCB 2200 0 0 0

C-20 Trip Blank 0 V 0

C-10 Duplicate of C-1 05 SV 2000 2 1000 05

C-1 05 (MSMSD) 500 1 500 025

C-11 Duplicate of C-1 05 MET 1000 1 1000 05

C-20 Duplicate of C-2 10 V PCB (MSMSD)

4400 4 1100 11

C-16 Duplicate of C-4 50 PCB 2000 2 1000 50

C-6 0 PCB 2000 2 1000 0

17

o o n TABLE 1-7 (Continued) CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation amp Filtration

PPF-1 V SV MET PCB 2000 2 1000 0

Sludge

Sludge-1 0 MET PCB 0

V = VolatUe organics SV = Semivolatile organics MET = Metals PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls CT = Chronic toxicity MSMSD = Matrix spikematrix spike dup D = DupUcate TB = Trip blank PPF = Precipitated and pressure filtered

(to minimize volatUes loss as opposed to vacuum filtration)

18

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

c

c

For an evaluation of the carbon adsorption unit operation samples of the three fUtrates were

percolated through a 1 glass column charged with Calgon brand activated carbon Calgons

powdered activated 325 mesh carbon was recommended by Calgon for use in the bench-

scale studies because it decreases the contact time required for adsorption and can be filtered

out of the groundwater with a 045 micron pore size filter Each fUtrate was subjected to the

same carbon treatment The flow rate through the carbon column was adjusted to simulate

the fuU scale onsite carbon adsorption flow rate

113 Results

The results of the Phase I treatability study showed that PCBs the contaminants of greatest

concem were not removed by the filtration unit operation when it was employed as the only

treatment technique This indicates that the PCBs were dissolved or adhered to suspended

material finer than the smaUest commerciaUy avaUable filter pore size and that filtration

alone carmot remove PCBs to the cleanup level Activated carbon is necessary to achieve

PCB cleanup levels

The PCB results from the filtered carbon adsorbed samples indicated that the carbon

removed aU of the PCBs to a concentration of less than 05 xgL The analytical data was

vaUdated using the Data QuaUty Objective (DQO) Level HI criteria outlined in the

Groundwater Bench-Scale Phase I treatability Study QuaUty Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)

All of the analytical data was determined to be vaUd The PCB analytical resuUs are

presented in Table 1-1

One sample of the treated groundwater discharge from the interim treatment operation was

coUected on November 25 1991 The sample was analyzed and found to contain less than

050 jugL PCBs This sample was also analyzed for the twenty three Target Analyte List

(TAL) metals All of the metals concentrations were below the discharge limits calculated

based on AWQC and the flow rate of the discharge and the Neponset River See Tables 1-2

c

c

c

TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF PCB RESULTS FOR PHASE I TREATABILITY SAMPLES

Aroclor 1254 Surrogate Recoveries Concentration xgL TCMX DBC

Initial Sample 48 J 26 93 (Settled Decanted)

Coarse FUtered 63 J 57 102

Coarse FUtered DupUcate 79 140 105

Medium FUtered 59 61 108

Fine FUtered 52 78 97

Coarse FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 75 105

Medium FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 72 92

Fine FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 101

Method Blank 050 UJ 58

Pump Equipment Blank 050 UJ 36 110

TCMX = 2 4 5 6 tetrachlorometaxylene CLP 390 SOW Advisory Recovery Range 60 shy150

DBC = Dibutylchlorendate CLP 288 SOW Advisory Recovery Range 24-154

A non-PCB positive interfering compound coeluted with the DBC surrogate in the method blank therefore the surrogate recovery could not be quantitated

Aroclors 1221 1232 1242 1248 and 1260 were nondetected (050 U) in aU samples

Coarse FUter 10 micron pore size Medium FUter 5 micron pore size Fine FUter 1 micron pore size

c

o C) o TABLE 1-2 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER WITH EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

bull v - o x - - - - - - - - bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - - bull bull bull

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull gt bull bull bull bull gt bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull o gt pMWmmmXiiizz-mm^ 4SoSiSSiyS iSs DAILY - AVQ ^bull sectMMMsectMM mM i^i^^^^

W^MM^0 i ^^ ^ i ^ ^ ) ) ^ ^ ^ ^

liffiSaiArtiMifiig wampsectii^i9MMzWMM^lt

i 0 t M B W ^ SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE

-yio|ijMi i|5|laquoiilifc^ li^Oimim

PHASEn PHASE I PHASE

SURFACE BEDROCK BEDROCK

SjiA3tliilAM|li-^ isiowfciili^rBo^

(van) (uan) (uou

PHASEE

BEDROCK

fuow

iiHiisii BEDROCK

iiiiiiiiiixiii ixc ilfeiiili f-iO(3Msect

Wyt(Bm m^mmM miimmiM camamm WmM-M

|ii|iiiU-S |JipSEsiit||l ^ ^

Mi(iiteiii iciiiiitiii f-Wi^WM

ilii^y^iii illi^i^liliiiSl-liN lGipilaquooiraquoi|i|ii| ^^^ljMm$m-

MAXIMUM

EFFLUENT

DISCHARGE

bull^ bull bull L E V E L bullbullbull

(U6L) (8gt(gt)

MONTHLY

EFFLUENT

DISCHAROE

bull iLEVEL bullbull

(tlOLi (8)(9)

bull||yensi|| W0fW^iz

DISCHAROE

sectBlWW$W ( U a U (8)(9)

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull

iiil iW^

VOLATILE OROANICS

111-TricUoiocthuie 3 3 - - NC NC 170000 NC NC 68850000

M^iM^l ia i t i^^ W MMf ^ ^ i ^ M

Vinyl Chloride

mMWMimMilBMMM iil|||i||i||i|||||

14 14 73

SSi5i5

W S X i i m S M 120 23 6S 110

bull -

bull bull T

no

Wfimmim ISiMBB

NC

llliNGSM iiiipltiiii

NC

bulliiSfi4i|ii-

li PIiAlio|jifshy-3250

mimpmamp wwrnmim-NC

ampampllz-^f^C

Wwyen WM NC

170100

bull bull bull bull shy bull ^ raquo - S 5 lt gt

2126250

12-Dieliloroethene (toUl) 77 300 199 560 44 68 43 no 11600 (13) NC 1400000 (4) 4698000 NC 567000000

|||iiSi^i||laquo|||ii^^^^^^^^

Xylenei (total)

kz^z23i(iwMitiMM^^ W0$0Tisectsectg^^

6 6 shy

|isii7Pois

WlampMlMampW0 - shy shy shy

i-wip

-

z4smmm lmm0(M

NC

sSiiiraquolii(i)l iilltlaquoili

NC

i--iii ii -^lli||Piiiii

NC

ioisiaiiiSipop lsectfiMm

NC

i-Mti969M)

i - zF ^M SC

372ib0

$$laquo43

NC

bullWz-i

SEMIVOLATILES

23S-Trichioioi)beaol 10 10 - - NC NC NC NC NC NC

j|NiiwUfl|ropw^^

13-Dictiloiobeiizeiie

sectMimiMmm^ i|il||||iii|i||i

4 4 shy

i-siJ(t| ii|i WSMWiMMMiWMMM^

-

WMsect M WBWWrshy-

MiMxim- $MM^Mz

NO

m-z^mmi m^msmm NC

IM---iiiMMM WzMW Sk

2600

|Siii laquowq zz^Wlt^^

NC

bullMz-zziMii WzlMM

NC

kiMAz-iMampi WmtW^

1053000

14-Dichlorobenzeiie 14 14 48 67 shy shy shy - NC NC 2600 NC NC 1053000

| i i | l i t j | i i | i | ^

ii|ii|llllilill^ bullimMmMMiiMWMM ghif^m^MmMmiM^

iSmMMyMMsectsectMfziM^ i||||i|i |i|j|||^

bulliMMiiM ^zZ^ZzZZZZ^

^ --zllMMmd |sii|i|ii|

- ISSiiii lls-^iiil

i^iMM^i-iM wiiiW^Sz

iliiO-ii i l- iif-iiiii

WM--z ampiM fampMM

f bull iSilwiobtti

|i|3jl|i|

P C B I

Aioclor-1254 34 180 26 89 64 8 24 27 20 fT) 0014 CT) 00045 810 57 18 AF

secti^^MMMampMM^^ Aroclor-1254 (paper-filtered)

Arociot-124S

BM iM-mi-MmsectMMMiz iiili|iiililiiiliiliiiii

- - l i

liJii -rilSiiiiiil

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii l-l il shy shy -

ilJi|i i-sectsectMBsect i

-

j 0 lt7) iOjCT)

20 (7)

Oi014 (7)

001 (7)

0014 CD

immmmB WMi^MampMi

00IM5

MM--zMshyi bulll l i l i |iloi

^

-bull-iigtM

WsectM0-amp 57

nzzmmm mlBWM

18

V

Aroclof-1248 (ghit-filteRd) 4 4 shy shy shy - 20 (7) 0014 CT) 00045 810 57 18 F

Phaie I RI umpling conducted in May 1988 Phaae II RI lampling conducted in April 1989

NC bull No criteria cxitta for thia compound

(1) Inaufficient Data to Develop Criteria Value preaented ia LOEL shy Loweit Obierved Effect Level

(2) Value preaented for carelnogeiia ia the 10-5 level

(3) Value preaented ia for dichloroethenea

(4) Value preieoted ia for trana 12-dichloroetliene

(5) pH dependent criteria (78 pH uted)

(6) Value preaented ia for chlorinated benzenea

(7) Value presented ia for total PCBa

(8) Effluent DiKhaige Limit based upon an effluent discharge of 5 gpm to the Neponset River during the 7-day low flow lOyr recurrence (2O20gpm)

USGS Pleasant Street Oauging Station on the Neponset River

(9) Dilution factor =[(5gpm+2020gpm)5gpml= 405

(lO)Concentration exceeds effluent discharge limit contaminant must be removed by Groundwater Treatment Plant before discharge to surface water [D=DAILY MAX A=AVG MONTHLY F=FISH]

-

-

-

- - -

-

-

-

-

-

o n o TABLE 1-3 COMPARISON OF METAL CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER WFTH EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull bull bull bull gt gt bull gt bull bull bull bull bull - bull bulliii|vO|| iS iggJMLnei i iaD s-UNFILTEREDgssHis M-B33nsRmmMMM D A I L Y iiiiiiiiiiiiiAVGiiiiii |i mmmmMmmm Xy lira^li P H A S E I WtiiMM liwiAiiiii iiiiimiii iii-pHiwiiliiiii WampMM P H A S E I ilii iiwgiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiili|i| iiii iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii M A X I M U M iiiiipifriiii^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiiifiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

555^gt5^5V555^^^^ i i i ilaquoiij S U R F A C E m m m Wtm^itM B E D R O C K bull bull gt f t bullbullbull B E D R O C K iiiFRiiliiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiijsiiiiiriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii|iiiiiiliiiiiiii E F F L U E N T E F F L U E N T E F F L U E N T iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii wmmm |||ii||li| |i IliAiiiiil WliampiMM liiiiltiilii^isiiii liiiiifctAXliii iiiAiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^i^iibhreiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii liiiiiii iiHiiiiiiiiiiiiii- D I S C H A R O E D I S C H A R O E D I S C H A R O E iiiii imm^mi mmmn WmMm WBrnB

PARAlt4ETER W iMmm iiiiiiiii iiitjiiiii Wi^MMM iiii iiiiiiiiilii iiiaraquoliiii W-imMMi iiiiiiaiiiii mMmmmm iCSiiMAiiiiii O O N S U M P iiiiiiiVEitiiii liiiiisyifeEiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiitiiiiL iiii cii^i iiiiiifl|5iili iiiiiiili (UOW iiiiiiii (oon) iiiiult3piili (UOL) lzMcii0m (UGL) iipiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|^(Siliiiiiiiiii|iiiiii (UOL) (2) (UOL) (6)C7) (IKJL) (6)C7) (UOn) (6) C7) i^iipi

M E T A L S

A h m i n u m 154000 390000 119 352 12500 43900 74 77 NA NA NA NC NC NC

i^poundi1i liiiiiii^iii iiiiiiiPi iii|ilsi iliiiJsiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iii-iili liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii-raquoiiiilti)ij^i JiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiW)i(5i iiiiiiiiiiiiii6Pigtiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiS5iraquoii)i iiiiiitiraquo50 iiiiii3f laquoltraquollishyJ^Sn^iii-illii iiiillifil II |-Iilliiii WlampMi liiliii-ii iiiiiiiifiiiiiili 22a iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii^iiiliiiiiii iiiiiiiiN iiiiiiliiiiiiiii iii-iiiiiiiiiii ifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii fiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiii i iiiiii i j ^ i iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiip iiiiiiiii Bar ium 690 1640 67 2laquo9 53 147 97 19 NC NC NC (5) NC NC NC Beryll ium 18 32 130 (1) 53 (1) 131 52650 2147 531

|^i^ii|litx i s bull liillliSi ZZZZZZZZZ i|||i-^i - iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiii --i|yiiiWi iiiifslt^laquoiiiiiii3jiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiltfcjii i(3yiiiliii iiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiJC iiii-S iifiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMi iiiiiiilii154- bull i i - i i6laquo856i mzMkm iiiiiiiliiii ii|iijji||ii|||i 9lMMi MmiMi zZ^ mm iiiiiiiifi li^iiiiiiiiiraquoliiii 33100 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilMi^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiieiiiii^iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Pi iiiiiiiiiiiiNti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij^i

Chromium 206 526 1 8 18 34 104 16 W 11 (4) 3200 (4) 648b 4455 1296000 -Cobal t 113 295 19 22 36 40 NC NC NC NC NC NC

fMgtimi-^ztm zmisectmi iMiMM wmmi M^iiiiampii iiJiiM 189 iiiiiiiiiisiiiiiilaquo3iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifii iiiiiiiiiiiliiiii^-iiiii isiiiiiiiiiiisiiiii CJiiiiiijiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiStCiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM bullsiiiii iiiiiiili5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiigtireii iiiiiiii-shy bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull iiiiiiliiiiiiWiii bull bull laquo raquo - iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiilifii iiiiiiiiiiii iii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii l i i i i i i i i i i^ i l l l i s i i iiiiii i-iiiiiiiSiiiiiiisiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|fltii- 405000 iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiwii iiiiAiiishymBmmm imampmm WmMM Wimm iiiiillili iiiiiiiiliiiiiii

Lead 43 i t3 21 168 l i 37 30 168 14 (3) 054 p) NC 5670 219 NC

Magnes ium 42400 148000 3950 8990 8630 21100 5040 11200 NC NC NC NC NC NC

iiititlj^iusibiii^j iilllJii^ -M-W^M iiiiiiii^^i^ ii-|7laquo- L5W iiiiiiiiiiiiiilliiifii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiltiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii ii5iiiiiiie iiiiiiiiiiii bullbull bull l t raquo iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNC iiiiiiii isci i i i | | i i i | | i p i i II0M^I iiiiiliiiiiiiiilii WM^MmM ilillilflil i | | | l il |o| | l i i l i P liiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiip8iii bullbull ( U si i l i l i iiiiii- iiii-li|i5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiipiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiii -i- o-iil bull iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiii laquoiii

Nicke l 164 452 64 104 643 (3) 33 (3) 3800 260415 13365 1539000 -Potaaaium 13100 33400 2800 5420 4580 9790 3280 5780 NC NC NC NC NC NC

i|i3laquo|i |s||i ilsectiampim illii|li MmMm iiliil|^i7ii il-lii^|iiraquoiii- (iiltii iliiiiiii^iiiiili^^^ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiii2iwiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiliis lt 6800 ii5iiiiiiiyilaquoJpll i iiiiiiiiiifiiil ^iiilOWi iiiiiii3^lHWraquoi iiiiii--i

|i|||ii Iliii illl|iillSI |illliSl^| illillaquoii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiliiltiii laquo raquo iiiiiiiiiiiii||i||| iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii|i|ltoigttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiliiiiilii iiiiiiiiiiiii bull^bull i l iNc| i-|iiiii -i-iii ii gti5 i iiiiiiiili^^ iiiiiiiiiiii Oiiiiiiii|i bulliiiiiiii Sodium 14100 28900 12500 26raquo00 16320 33200 16300 68000 N c NC NC Nc NC Nc Thal l ium 10 10 58 10 1400 (1) 40 (1) 32 567000 16200 1296

igtPiiiilli MmmmiM liilililil iiliiiiisii iii|ii| bulliiii iiiiiisiiilii iiiiiiiiiiiii|i ii^|i iiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii iiiiiiii ii^iliiiiiiiNiilliiiiiiiji- bulli|iiiiiflaquoSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii|lNe-|i-ii iiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Nc iiiiiii liiNCii iiiiiii iiiiiiiilifiei iiiii iiiiiii iilaquo|||il| mmmmi m m m i M iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisil i iiiisiiiiilllii iiiiliiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiitii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiii iiiiiiliili-|s4ii iiilliiiiiiii ssiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii^^iii-iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii 13365 iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiip^ P b a i e I RI sampling conducted in M a y 1988 Phase II RI samplmg conducted in Apri l 1989

N C = N o cri teria exiata for th is compotmd

N A = N o t Available

(1) Insufficient Data to Develop Cri ter ia Value presented is L O E L - Lowest Observed Effect Level

(2) Value preaented for careinogena ia the 10-S level

(3) Hardness dependent c r i te r ia (25 mgA C A C 0 3 uaed)

(4) Value presented is for Ihe m o r e toxic hexavalent form

(5) Value presented is proposed (more conservat ive)

(6) Effluent Discharge L imi t dilution factor based upon an effluent discbarge of 5 gpm to the Neponse t River during the 7 - d a y low flow lOyr recurrence (2020gpm)

USOS Pleasant Street Oaug ing atation on the Neponset River

(7) Dilut ion factor =[(Sgpm+2020gpm)Sgpm]= 405

(lO)Concentration exceeds effluent discharge limit contaminant must be removed by Groundwate r Treatment Plant before discharge to Ihe Neponset River [ D = D A I L Y M A X A = A V O M O N T H L Y F=FISH]

c and 1-3 for effluent (Uscharge limits for organic and inorganic compounds An acute toxicity

test showed that no toxic effect was observed for the interim treatment discharge

114 Conclusions

Based on the results of the Phase I bench scale treatabUity study the combined unit

operations of fUtration foUowed by carbon adsorption were effective in treating the

contaminated groundwater coUected during the pumping tests for temporary discharge to the

Neponset River A sample of the discharge was coUected during the groundwater treatment

and it was found to contain less than the quantitation limit of 05 xgL of PCB The metals

concentrations were aU determined to be below the discharge criteria A sample was also

coUected and submitted for an acute toxicity determination The resuUs showed that no toxic

effect was observed The bench scale treatability results and the on-line discharge analyses

demonstrate that the filtration and carbon adsorption unit operations were effective temporary

treatment techniques

^ 12 FULL SCALE STUDY

A groundwater treatability study was conducted to evaluate the performance of four different

treatment processes on contaminated groundwater obtained from the Norwood PCB site The

contaminants present in the groundwater were determined during previous studies conducted

in May 1988 and AprU 1989 by EBASCO Chapter 1 of the Final FeasibUity Study

(EBASCO 1989c) contains an overview of the results obtained during these investigations

Based on the resuUs of the May 1988 and AprU 1989 field investigations EPA concluded

that the overburden and bedrock aquifers beneath the site were contaminated with

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and volatUe and semivolatile organic compounds (VOCs

and SVOCs) It was determined that surficial and subsurface soUs dredge pUes of sediments

taken from Meadow Brook sediments in Meadow Brook and sediments in the drainage

system of the buUding operated by Grant Gear were the sources of the contamination In

r

c September 1989 EPA released the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Norwood PCB site In

the ROD EPA directed that groundwater be treated with a system including activated carbon

air stripping with vapor controls and precipitationfiltration iEPA also directed that

treatability studies or pUot studies be conducted to aid in the overaU design of the system

In accordance with the ROD a bench scale treatabUity study was conducted at the ENSECO

Laboratory Facility in Cambridge Massachusetts by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel between

January 14 and February 16 1992 This report presents a description of the work

completed resuUs and conclusions of the study

121 Objectives

The fuU-scale groundwater treatability study was conducted to determine if treatment

consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping and carbon adsorption would effectively

remove the contamination present in the groundwater at the Norwood PCB site to appUcable

standards Information on the percent reduction of organic and inorganic compounds in the

groundwater volume type of residual and byproducts produced by each component were

also investigated A schematic detailing the treatability study and the sampling and analysis

conducted is presented in Figure 1-1

122 Description of Work

The treatability study was performed in accordance with Pre-Design Work Plan 3 and the

QuaUty Assurance Project Plan for the Phase n Bench-Scale TreatabiUty Study (Work

Plan 3)

Groundwater samples were coUected from the Norwood PCB site for use in this

investigation Interim sampling was performed on effluent streams generated from each

bench-scale process for analysis according to Table 1-4 Influent and final effluent samples

generated during the groundwater treatabiUty were coUected and analyzed through the CLP

^

o JAR TESTING SAMPLE ID

o

POLYMER TESTING

RAW GROUNDWATER

VOL 1 SVOL I p PCB f ^ ^ METALS

mdash SST

T

T

T

SS - Choose Polymer T ar)d Dose Estimate pH pf i After Coagu lant

Jar Test 1 PH10 bull

Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

Ume wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

Jar Test 2 pH9

Jar Test 3 pH8

bull

Lime w C oag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

JT1 -1 shy

j r i -2 shy

JT1 -3 shy

JTI-4

j r 2 - 1

JT2-2 shy

JT2-3

j r2-4 bull

JT3-1 shy

JT3-2shy

JT3-3 bull

JT3-4 shy

HLTRATION TESTING

RIter Paper 1 - SS T Time mdash |

RIter Paper 2 - SS T Time-

Rlter Paper 3 - SS T Time -

CtHXise Filter Paper or Particle Retention Size

Sample Well Using Bailer

VOL SVOL PCB CLPMETALS (PPF-1)

Precipitate and Filter Using Optimized Polymer pH Coagulant and Filter

lt

AIR STRIPPING

AJrWater Ratio 1

AirWater Ratio 2

AirWater Ratio3 ~

VOLmdash1

-VOL

-VOLmdash

SAMPLE ID CARBON ADSORPTION (All by CLP)

Carbon mdashVOL SVOL Metals AC-1

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-2

Dose 3 mdash ^ deg shy reg ^ deg ^^reg ^ ^

Carbon

Dose1

Carbon Dose 2

Cartwn

Dose 4

Cartxjn Dose 1

Carbon Dose2~

Carbon Dose 3

Carbon Dose4~

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-4

-VOL C-1

-VOL SVOL Metals C-2

-VOL PCB C-3

bull VOL SVOL Chronic Toxicity C-4

Jar Test 4 pH 10 Dup

bull

- Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

Jr4-1

JT4-2

JT4-3

Carbon Doses

Cartxgtn Dose 6

-VOL SVOL PCB

mdash VOL Metals

C-5

C-6

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals JT4-4

VOL = Volatile Organics SVOL = Semi Volatile Organics

Carbon Dose 7

mdashVOL SVOL C-7

SS = Suspended Solids

NaOH-MNAL JT5-1 T = Turbidity

Jar Test 5 pHIO

NaOH - wPolymer - MN AL

NaOH wPoly wCoag RItered - MN AL

JT5-2

JT5-3

NaOH wPdy wCoag Aerated andRItered - MN AL

JT5-4

^ NaOH wPdy wCoag PermanganateRItered - MN M

JT5-5

J O Special FIGURE 1-1 TREATABILITY STUDY

Optimize pH Decide Ume or NaOH

SAMPUNG AND ANALYSIS SCHEMATIC

Compare Polymer vs Coagulant

(J DF222658HW

c

c

TABLE 1-4 TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Number Bench Scale Process

Groundwater Treatability Study

Initial Groundwater

Preliminary Polymer Testing

Precipitation Supemant

FUtration Effluent

Metals Sludge Precipitated and FUtered Effluent with Groundwater CoUected with BaUer

Air Stripping Effluent

Air Stripped Carbon Adsorption Effluent

Non Air Stripped Carbon Effluent

Sludge Sample

Rock Washing Study

Initial Rocks Initial Gravel from roof Stone from Cap Washed Rocks Washed Stones

Samples

1

1 1

16 16 16

3 3

1 2 2 2

3

4 4 2 2

7 4 2 2 1 1

3 5 6 3 1

Analysis

VolatUes SemivolatUes PCB Metals Suspended SoUds pH Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity Metals VolatUe Organics

Suspended SoUds TuAidity

PCB VolatUe Organics PCB SemivolatUe Organics

VolatUe Organics

SemivolatUe Organics VolatUe Organics Metals PCB

VolatUe Organics SemivolatUe Organics Metals PCB Chronic Toxicity PCBs Metals

PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB

Laboratory

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

c

c

c

system for volatUes semivolatUes PCBs and metals AU interim samples were analyzed at

ENSECO in Cambridge Massachusetts AU data was vaUdated by MampE according to the

QAPP

1221 Groundwater Sample CoUection Groundwater for this study was coUected from

weUs MW-IA and ME-8 as shown on Figure 1-2 iMW-lA was chosen as a sampling

location because it was determined to be one of the most contaminated weUs on-site based

on previous investigations During the course of the treatabiUty study a decision was made

to obtain samples from ME-8 because results of the most recent sampling effort conducted by

ICF indicated that groundwater from this weU contained approximately 200 xgL vinyl

chloride whereas groundwater from MW-IA no longer contained any quantifiable amount

Removal of vinyl chloride by aeration needed to be demonstrated during this investigation

because vinyl chloride is not effectively removed by carbon adsorption

Groundwater samples were obtained on four separate occasions during the study as shown in

Table 1-5 On each occasion the groundwater was coUected in accordance with the Field

Sampling Plan Three weU volumes of water were purged from the weU using a centrifiigal

pump before any samples were coUected The pH temperature and conductivity of the

purge water was measured after each weU volume untU the measured values differed by less

than 10 for three consecutive samples to ensure the sample drawn was representative of the

water in the aquifer Samples for the metals precipitation and filtration study were coUected

using a centrifugal pump Samples for the air stripping and carbon adsorption study were

coUected with a teflon baUer to minimize aeration and possible loss of volatUes during

sample coUection

The samples were coUected in one gallon amber glass bottles and stored at 4degC Each

sample bottle wasfiUed to exclude a headspace in the bottle

e 10

200 200

SCALE IN FEET

D CAP ROCK SAMPLE LOCATION

bull WELLS

nOURE 1-2 GROUNDWATER AND TRENCH AND CAP

ROCK SAMPLING LOCATIONS

11

E T C A L F a EDDY

c TABLE 1-5 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING SUMMARY

Mode of Date WeU Amount Sampled pH Temp degC Conductivity SampUng

11392 MW-IA 10 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm pump

12792 MW-IA 16 gaUons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20392 MW-IA 16 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20592 ME-8 2 gallons 64 8deg 230 umhocm baUer

1222 Precipitation Testing

General Chemical precipitation for the removal of metals was evaluated at three pH values

and three polymer dosages to determine the effectiveness of the treatment A preliminary

evaluation of different coagulants and polymers was conducted at three pH values by

r Metcalf amp Eddy personnel and a leading polymer vendor to determine which chemicals could

potentiaUy be used to precipitate groundwater Based on the results from the preliminary

evaluation jar tests were conducted by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel to aid in the determination

of the chemical dosages required to optimize the effectiveness of precipitation

Polymer and Coagulent Testing Polymer testing was performed by Metcalf amp Eddy and a

leading polymer vendor at the ENSECO laboratory faciUty in Cambridge Massachusetts

The effectiveness of anionic cationic and nonioiuc polymer was evaluated at three pH

values The best polymer was determined to be Drewfloc 2270 a low charge anionic high

molecular weight polymer This polymer was used in jar tests 1 through 5 The best

coagulent was determined to be Charge Pack 12 (CP-12) a higher charge cationic low

molecular weight coagulent The CP-12 coagulent was used in jar tests 1 through 5

described under jar testing

12 c

InitiaUy the effects of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was investigated Tests c were conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 with sodium hydroxide which had the best

settling characteristics based on visual observation and turbidity measurement Each polymer

was then tested at pH = 100 to evaluate Us effectiveness under optimum pH conditions

A formula of polymer and coagulant addition was developed based on visual observations

suspended soUds and turbidity analyses performed on each sample generated during the

investigation The anionic polymer effectively flocculated the existing smaU suspended

particles and the addkion of cationic coagulant removed iron and color when the pH was

raised to 100

Jar Testing Five jar tests were performed using the polymer and coagulants determined to

be effective during preliminary testing Jar tests 1 and 4 were conducted as dupUcates at

ph 10 Jar test 2 was conducted at pH 9 jar test 3 was conducted at pH 8 and jar test 5 was

conducted at pH 10 On each occasion prior to beginning the jar test the raw groundwater

was brought tol5deg-17degCina warm water bath The temperature was held constant to c eliminate the effects of temperature on reaction rates and solubUity

The foUowing is a description of activities conducted during the jar tests fti through 4 See

Figure 1-1 for details Four samples were evaluated during each jar test For each jar test

four 15 Uter beakers were fiUed with 1 Uter of raw groundwater The beakers were placed

on the stirrer platform and the paddles were lowered into the sample The jar stirrer was

operated at 80 revolutions per minute (rpm) The pH was then adjusted to the desired value

(pH = 10 9 8 10 for Tests 1 2 3 4) with a lime slurry in two samples and with a

sodium hydroxide solution (25) in the remaining two samples Lime was added to

investigate its effects on the precipitate and to evaluate its effectiveness in pH adjustment

The cationic coagulant was then added to each sample untU the concentration in solution was

30 mgL The solution was stirred at 80 rpm for 2 minutes to ensure complete mixing The

polymer was then added to one sample pH adjusted with sodium hydroxide and one sample

pH adjusted with lime Mixing continued for two minutes Next the solution was stirred

13 c

slowly orflocculated for five minutes at 20 rpm FinaUy the solutions were aUowed to

c settle for 10 minutes Visual observations were recorded and samples were submitted for

suspended soUds turbidity and metals analyses

Jar test 5 was performed to assess the removal of manganese and aluminum by preaeration

and permanganate additions (see Figure 1-1) Because no significant benefit was observed in

the previous tests when lime was used instead of sodium hydroxide sodium hydroxide was

used to adjust the pH in aU four samples to a pH of 100 in jar test 5 Only sodium

hydroxide was added to the groundwater in the first jar to determine the removal of

manganese and aluminum attributable to the formation of an insoluble salt at high pH

Sodium hydroxide and polymer were added to the second jar to evaluate the effectiveness of

the polymer Sodium hydroxide polymer and coagulant were added to sample 4 The

supemate from sample 4 was then fUtered This was performed to determine if the required

removal efficiencies could be achieved by chemical precipitation and filtration

Permanganate was added to sample 3 in addition to sodium hydroxide coagulant and

polymer to determine if the manganese and aluminum present could be chemicaUy oxidized c to a less soluble state which would enhance the efficiency of fUtration The supemate was

then siphoned off using clean tygon tubing and a syringe into the sample containers

Samples were submitted for metals suspended soUds and turbidity as illustrated on

Figure 1-1

1223 Filtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was perfonned to determine the

optimum pore size of filter media that could effectively remove the suspended soUds in the

precipitated groundwater The determination of the removal efficiency for each filter was

based on the concentration of suspended soUds and turbidity of the filtered water The time

required to filter the groundwater was also evaluated

Prior to filtration the metals in the groundwater were precipitated and coagulent and polymer

were added using the optimum conditions developed during the precipitation study The

optimum conditions consisted of pH adjustment to 10 with sodium hydroxide addition of

14 c

coagulent CP-12 to a concentration of one percent and addition of Drewfloc 2270 polymer to

c a concentration of 10 mgl Three grades (10 xm 5 xm and 1 xm pore sizes) of filter

paper were used with a Buchner ftmnel to filter aUquots of the precipitated groundwater

Samples of the filtered water were submitted to ENSECO for suspended soUds and turbidity

analysis

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge was coUected during the treatability study The

sludge sample was submitted to the CLP system for PCB and metals analysis so that a

characterization of the sludge could be made and disposal options could be evaluated

1224 Air Stripping Testing Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at three

different air to water ratios to determine the most effective stripping ratio To ensure that

worst case volatUe organic compound concentrations were present in the samples for this

study some modifications were made in how the sample was coUected and treated First

the groundwater was coUected with a baUer to prevent the loss of volatUes AdditionaUy the

water was fUtered under positive pressure foUowing the precipitation step to minimize the c loss of volatUes that would result if the water was filtered using a vacuum pump

An aquarium pump tygon tubing and aeration stone with a glass-fiber fUter cartridge was

used to aerate 1-Uter aUquots of precipitated and filtered groundwater The aeration flow

rate was caUbrated by filling a graduated cylinder with air that had been filled with tap water

and inverted in a water bath The air was diffused at 375 missec into 1-Uter aUquots of

groundwater and the time measured as iUustrated in Table 1-6 The aerated groundwater was

submitted to ENSECO for volatUe organics analysis

1225 Carbon Adsorption Testing The effectiveness of activated carbon for the removal

of organic compounds in the groundwater at the site was evaluated The carbon used was

the powdered activated 325 mesh carbon suppUed by Calgon Corporation The groundwater

samples used for this investigation were obtained and filtered as described in the air stripping

15 c

c

c

TABLE 1-6 AERATION TEST OPERATIONS

Air to Water Ratio Volume Volume of by Volume of Water Air Reqd Min of Aeration

251 1000 ml 25000 ml 111 501 1000 ml 50000 ml 222 751 1000 ml 75000 ml 333

section of this report to minimize the loss of volatUes A total of twelve samples were mn

during this investigation The necessity of air stripping was investigated by comparing the

resuUs from four samples that were air stripped to seven samples that were treated identicaUy

with the exception of air stripping AU samples for the air stripping comparison went

through the precipitation filtration and carbon adsorption processes AdditionaUy one

sample was prepared with no carbon added to serve as an untreated sample The samples are

summarized in Table 1-7 Each groundwater sample was prepared and mixed with a

predetermined dose of Calgon powdered 325 mesh activated carbon and placed m an open

Erlenmyer flask on a shaker table for a two-hour time period at 180 rpm A rotary shaker

table capable of accommodating twelve (12)-1000 ml Erlenmyer flasks was used Effluent

was fUtered with a barrel filter using a glass-fiber pre-fUter and a Whatman 45 micron

membrane The effluent clear and odorless in aU cases was added to sample containers

preserved and packed for shipment to CLP laboratories Since the shaker table could

accommodate 12 flasks a total of approximately 4 gaUons of effluent was generated during

each mn Several mns were performed to generate adequate quantities of sample for

analysis accordmg to Table 1-7 Groundwater was simUarly prepared for submittal to

Aquatec Lab in Burlington Vermont for chronic toxicity testing Three (3) shipments of

approximately 2 gaUons each were made

r 16

C) o o TABLE 1-7 CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation Filtration Aeration amp Carbon

AC-1 05 V SV MET 3400 3 1067 054 AC-2 20 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 22 AC-3 50 V SV MET 3400 3 1133 57 AC-4 100 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 110 AC-5 Trip Blank 0 V

Precipitation Filtration amp Carbon

C-0 0 V 500 1 500 0

C-1 05 V SV MET 3200 3 1067 053

c-2 10 V PCB 2200 2 1100 11

C-3 20 V SV CT 29000 24 1250 25

C-4 50 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 55

C-17 70 V MET 1200 1 1200 70

C-18 100 V SV 2200 2 1100 110

C-13 Treatability Blank 0 V PCB 2200 0 0 0

C-20 Trip Blank 0 V 0

C-10 Duplicate of C-1 05 SV 2000 2 1000 05

C-1 05 (MSMSD) 500 1 500 025

C-11 Duplicate of C-1 05 MET 1000 1 1000 05

C-20 Duplicate of C-2 10 V PCB (MSMSD)

4400 4 1100 11

C-16 Duplicate of C-4 50 PCB 2000 2 1000 50

C-6 0 PCB 2000 2 1000 0

17

o o n TABLE 1-7 (Continued) CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation amp Filtration

PPF-1 V SV MET PCB 2000 2 1000 0

Sludge

Sludge-1 0 MET PCB 0

V = VolatUe organics SV = Semivolatile organics MET = Metals PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls CT = Chronic toxicity MSMSD = Matrix spikematrix spike dup D = DupUcate TB = Trip blank PPF = Precipitated and pressure filtered

(to minimize volatUes loss as opposed to vacuum filtration)

18

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

c

c

TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF PCB RESULTS FOR PHASE I TREATABILITY SAMPLES

Aroclor 1254 Surrogate Recoveries Concentration xgL TCMX DBC

Initial Sample 48 J 26 93 (Settled Decanted)

Coarse FUtered 63 J 57 102

Coarse FUtered DupUcate 79 140 105

Medium FUtered 59 61 108

Fine FUtered 52 78 97

Coarse FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 75 105

Medium FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 72 92

Fine FUtered Carbon Adsorbed 050 U 101

Method Blank 050 UJ 58

Pump Equipment Blank 050 UJ 36 110

TCMX = 2 4 5 6 tetrachlorometaxylene CLP 390 SOW Advisory Recovery Range 60 shy150

DBC = Dibutylchlorendate CLP 288 SOW Advisory Recovery Range 24-154

A non-PCB positive interfering compound coeluted with the DBC surrogate in the method blank therefore the surrogate recovery could not be quantitated

Aroclors 1221 1232 1242 1248 and 1260 were nondetected (050 U) in aU samples

Coarse FUter 10 micron pore size Medium FUter 5 micron pore size Fine FUter 1 micron pore size

c

o C) o TABLE 1-2 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER WITH EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

bull v - o x - - - - - - - - bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - - bull bull bull

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull gt bull bull bull bull gt bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull o gt pMWmmmXiiizz-mm^ 4SoSiSSiyS iSs DAILY - AVQ ^bull sectMMMsectMM mM i^i^^^^

W^MM^0 i ^^ ^ i ^ ^ ) ) ^ ^ ^ ^

liffiSaiArtiMifiig wampsectii^i9MMzWMM^lt

i 0 t M B W ^ SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE

-yio|ijMi i|5|laquoiilifc^ li^Oimim

PHASEn PHASE I PHASE

SURFACE BEDROCK BEDROCK

SjiA3tliilAM|li-^ isiowfciili^rBo^

(van) (uan) (uou

PHASEE

BEDROCK

fuow

iiHiisii BEDROCK

iiiiiiiiiixiii ixc ilfeiiili f-iO(3Msect

Wyt(Bm m^mmM miimmiM camamm WmM-M

|ii|iiiU-S |JipSEsiit||l ^ ^

Mi(iiteiii iciiiiitiii f-Wi^WM

ilii^y^iii illi^i^liliiiSl-liN lGipilaquooiraquoi|i|ii| ^^^ljMm$m-

MAXIMUM

EFFLUENT

DISCHARGE

bull^ bull bull L E V E L bullbullbull

(U6L) (8gt(gt)

MONTHLY

EFFLUENT

DISCHAROE

bull iLEVEL bullbull

(tlOLi (8)(9)

bull||yensi|| W0fW^iz

DISCHAROE

sectBlWW$W ( U a U (8)(9)

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull

iiil iW^

VOLATILE OROANICS

111-TricUoiocthuie 3 3 - - NC NC 170000 NC NC 68850000

M^iM^l ia i t i^^ W MMf ^ ^ i ^ M

Vinyl Chloride

mMWMimMilBMMM iil|||i||i||i|||||

14 14 73

SSi5i5

W S X i i m S M 120 23 6S 110

bull -

bull bull T

no

Wfimmim ISiMBB

NC

llliNGSM iiiipltiiii

NC

bulliiSfi4i|ii-

li PIiAlio|jifshy-3250

mimpmamp wwrnmim-NC

ampampllz-^f^C

Wwyen WM NC

170100

bull bull bull bull shy bull ^ raquo - S 5 lt gt

2126250

12-Dieliloroethene (toUl) 77 300 199 560 44 68 43 no 11600 (13) NC 1400000 (4) 4698000 NC 567000000

|||iiSi^i||laquo|||ii^^^^^^^^

Xylenei (total)

kz^z23i(iwMitiMM^^ W0$0Tisectsectg^^

6 6 shy

|isii7Pois

WlampMlMampW0 - shy shy shy

i-wip

-

z4smmm lmm0(M

NC

sSiiiraquolii(i)l iilltlaquoili

NC

i--iii ii -^lli||Piiiii

NC

ioisiaiiiSipop lsectfiMm

NC

i-Mti969M)

i - zF ^M SC

372ib0

$$laquo43

NC

bullWz-i

SEMIVOLATILES

23S-Trichioioi)beaol 10 10 - - NC NC NC NC NC NC

j|NiiwUfl|ropw^^

13-Dictiloiobeiizeiie

sectMimiMmm^ i|il||||iii|i||i

4 4 shy

i-siJ(t| ii|i WSMWiMMMiWMMM^

-

WMsect M WBWWrshy-

MiMxim- $MM^Mz

NO

m-z^mmi m^msmm NC

IM---iiiMMM WzMW Sk

2600

|Siii laquowq zz^Wlt^^

NC

bullMz-zziMii WzlMM

NC

kiMAz-iMampi WmtW^

1053000

14-Dichlorobenzeiie 14 14 48 67 shy shy shy - NC NC 2600 NC NC 1053000

| i i | l i t j | i i | i | ^

ii|ii|llllilill^ bullimMmMMiiMWMM ghif^m^MmMmiM^

iSmMMyMMsectsectMfziM^ i||||i|i |i|j|||^

bulliMMiiM ^zZ^ZzZZZZ^

^ --zllMMmd |sii|i|ii|

- ISSiiii lls-^iiil

i^iMM^i-iM wiiiW^Sz

iliiO-ii i l- iif-iiiii

WM--z ampiM fampMM

f bull iSilwiobtti

|i|3jl|i|

P C B I

Aioclor-1254 34 180 26 89 64 8 24 27 20 fT) 0014 CT) 00045 810 57 18 AF

secti^^MMMampMM^^ Aroclor-1254 (paper-filtered)

Arociot-124S

BM iM-mi-MmsectMMMiz iiili|iiililiiiliiliiiii

- - l i

liJii -rilSiiiiiil

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii l-l il shy shy -

ilJi|i i-sectsectMBsect i

-

j 0 lt7) iOjCT)

20 (7)

Oi014 (7)

001 (7)

0014 CD

immmmB WMi^MampMi

00IM5

MM--zMshyi bulll l i l i |iloi

^

-bull-iigtM

WsectM0-amp 57

nzzmmm mlBWM

18

V

Aroclof-1248 (ghit-filteRd) 4 4 shy shy shy - 20 (7) 0014 CT) 00045 810 57 18 F

Phaie I RI umpling conducted in May 1988 Phaae II RI lampling conducted in April 1989

NC bull No criteria cxitta for thia compound

(1) Inaufficient Data to Develop Criteria Value preaented ia LOEL shy Loweit Obierved Effect Level

(2) Value preaented for carelnogeiia ia the 10-5 level

(3) Value preaented ia for dichloroethenea

(4) Value preieoted ia for trana 12-dichloroetliene

(5) pH dependent criteria (78 pH uted)

(6) Value preaented ia for chlorinated benzenea

(7) Value presented ia for total PCBa

(8) Effluent DiKhaige Limit based upon an effluent discharge of 5 gpm to the Neponset River during the 7-day low flow lOyr recurrence (2O20gpm)

USGS Pleasant Street Oauging Station on the Neponset River

(9) Dilution factor =[(5gpm+2020gpm)5gpml= 405

(lO)Concentration exceeds effluent discharge limit contaminant must be removed by Groundwater Treatment Plant before discharge to surface water [D=DAILY MAX A=AVG MONTHLY F=FISH]

-

-

-

- - -

-

-

-

-

-

o n o TABLE 1-3 COMPARISON OF METAL CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER WFTH EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull bull bull bull gt gt bull gt bull bull bull bull bull - bull bulliii|vO|| iS iggJMLnei i iaD s-UNFILTEREDgssHis M-B33nsRmmMMM D A I L Y iiiiiiiiiiiiiAVGiiiiii |i mmmmMmmm Xy lira^li P H A S E I WtiiMM liwiAiiiii iiiiimiii iii-pHiwiiliiiii WampMM P H A S E I ilii iiwgiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiili|i| iiii iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii M A X I M U M iiiiipifriiii^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiiifiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

555^gt5^5V555^^^^ i i i ilaquoiij S U R F A C E m m m Wtm^itM B E D R O C K bull bull gt f t bullbullbull B E D R O C K iiiFRiiliiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiijsiiiiiriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii|iiiiiiliiiiiiii E F F L U E N T E F F L U E N T E F F L U E N T iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii wmmm |||ii||li| |i IliAiiiiil WliampiMM liiiiltiilii^isiiii liiiiifctAXliii iiiAiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^i^iibhreiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii liiiiiii iiHiiiiiiiiiiiiii- D I S C H A R O E D I S C H A R O E D I S C H A R O E iiiii imm^mi mmmn WmMm WBrnB

PARAlt4ETER W iMmm iiiiiiiii iiitjiiiii Wi^MMM iiii iiiiiiiiilii iiiaraquoliiii W-imMMi iiiiiiaiiiii mMmmmm iCSiiMAiiiiii O O N S U M P iiiiiiiVEitiiii liiiiisyifeEiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiitiiiiL iiii cii^i iiiiiifl|5iili iiiiiiili (UOW iiiiiiii (oon) iiiiult3piili (UOL) lzMcii0m (UGL) iipiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|^(Siliiiiiiiiii|iiiiii (UOL) (2) (UOL) (6)C7) (IKJL) (6)C7) (UOn) (6) C7) i^iipi

M E T A L S

A h m i n u m 154000 390000 119 352 12500 43900 74 77 NA NA NA NC NC NC

i^poundi1i liiiiiii^iii iiiiiiiPi iii|ilsi iliiiJsiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iii-iili liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii-raquoiiiilti)ij^i JiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiW)i(5i iiiiiiiiiiiiii6Pigtiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiS5iraquoii)i iiiiiitiraquo50 iiiiii3f laquoltraquollishyJ^Sn^iii-illii iiiillifil II |-Iilliiii WlampMi liiliii-ii iiiiiiiifiiiiiili 22a iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii^iiiliiiiiii iiiiiiiiN iiiiiiliiiiiiiii iii-iiiiiiiiiii ifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii fiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiii i iiiiii i j ^ i iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiip iiiiiiiii Bar ium 690 1640 67 2laquo9 53 147 97 19 NC NC NC (5) NC NC NC Beryll ium 18 32 130 (1) 53 (1) 131 52650 2147 531

|^i^ii|litx i s bull liillliSi ZZZZZZZZZ i|||i-^i - iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiii --i|yiiiWi iiiifslt^laquoiiiiiii3jiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiltfcjii i(3yiiiliii iiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiJC iiii-S iifiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMi iiiiiiilii154- bull i i - i i6laquo856i mzMkm iiiiiiiliiii ii|iijji||ii|||i 9lMMi MmiMi zZ^ mm iiiiiiiifi li^iiiiiiiiiraquoliiii 33100 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilMi^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiieiiiii^iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Pi iiiiiiiiiiiiNti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij^i

Chromium 206 526 1 8 18 34 104 16 W 11 (4) 3200 (4) 648b 4455 1296000 -Cobal t 113 295 19 22 36 40 NC NC NC NC NC NC

fMgtimi-^ztm zmisectmi iMiMM wmmi M^iiiiampii iiJiiM 189 iiiiiiiiiisiiiiiilaquo3iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifii iiiiiiiiiiiliiiii^-iiiii isiiiiiiiiiiisiiiii CJiiiiiijiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiStCiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM bullsiiiii iiiiiiili5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiigtireii iiiiiiii-shy bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull iiiiiiliiiiiiWiii bull bull laquo raquo - iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiilifii iiiiiiiiiiii iii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii l i i i i i i i i i i^ i l l l i s i i iiiiii i-iiiiiiiSiiiiiiisiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|fltii- 405000 iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiwii iiiiAiiishymBmmm imampmm WmMM Wimm iiiiillili iiiiiiiiliiiiiii

Lead 43 i t3 21 168 l i 37 30 168 14 (3) 054 p) NC 5670 219 NC

Magnes ium 42400 148000 3950 8990 8630 21100 5040 11200 NC NC NC NC NC NC

iiititlj^iusibiii^j iilllJii^ -M-W^M iiiiiiii^^i^ ii-|7laquo- L5W iiiiiiiiiiiiiilliiifii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiltiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii ii5iiiiiiie iiiiiiiiiiii bullbull bull l t raquo iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNC iiiiiiii isci i i i | | i i i | | i p i i II0M^I iiiiiliiiiiiiiilii WM^MmM ilillilflil i | | | l il |o| | l i i l i P liiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiip8iii bullbull ( U si i l i l i iiiiii- iiii-li|i5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiipiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiii -i- o-iil bull iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiii laquoiii

Nicke l 164 452 64 104 643 (3) 33 (3) 3800 260415 13365 1539000 -Potaaaium 13100 33400 2800 5420 4580 9790 3280 5780 NC NC NC NC NC NC

i|i3laquo|i |s||i ilsectiampim illii|li MmMm iiliil|^i7ii il-lii^|iiraquoiii- (iiltii iliiiiiii^iiiiili^^^ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiii2iwiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiliis lt 6800 ii5iiiiiiiyilaquoJpll i iiiiiiiiiifiiil ^iiilOWi iiiiiii3^lHWraquoi iiiiii--i

|i|||ii Iliii illl|iillSI |illliSl^| illillaquoii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiliiltiii laquo raquo iiiiiiiiiiiii||i||| iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii|i|ltoigttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiliiiiilii iiiiiiiiiiiii bull^bull i l iNc| i-|iiiii -i-iii ii gti5 i iiiiiiiili^^ iiiiiiiiiiii Oiiiiiiii|i bulliiiiiiii Sodium 14100 28900 12500 26raquo00 16320 33200 16300 68000 N c NC NC Nc NC Nc Thal l ium 10 10 58 10 1400 (1) 40 (1) 32 567000 16200 1296

igtPiiiilli MmmmiM liilililil iiliiiiisii iii|ii| bulliiii iiiiiisiiilii iiiiiiiiiiiii|i ii^|i iiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii iiiiiiii ii^iliiiiiiiNiilliiiiiiiji- bulli|iiiiiflaquoSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii|lNe-|i-ii iiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Nc iiiiiii liiNCii iiiiiii iiiiiiiilifiei iiiii iiiiiii iilaquo|||il| mmmmi m m m i M iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisil i iiiisiiiiilllii iiiiliiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiitii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiii iiiiiiliili-|s4ii iiilliiiiiiii ssiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii^^iii-iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii 13365 iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiip^ P b a i e I RI sampling conducted in M a y 1988 Phase II RI samplmg conducted in Apri l 1989

N C = N o cri teria exiata for th is compotmd

N A = N o t Available

(1) Insufficient Data to Develop Cri ter ia Value presented is L O E L - Lowest Observed Effect Level

(2) Value preaented for careinogena ia the 10-S level

(3) Hardness dependent c r i te r ia (25 mgA C A C 0 3 uaed)

(4) Value presented is for Ihe m o r e toxic hexavalent form

(5) Value presented is proposed (more conservat ive)

(6) Effluent Discharge L imi t dilution factor based upon an effluent discbarge of 5 gpm to the Neponse t River during the 7 - d a y low flow lOyr recurrence (2020gpm)

USOS Pleasant Street Oaug ing atation on the Neponset River

(7) Dilut ion factor =[(Sgpm+2020gpm)Sgpm]= 405

(lO)Concentration exceeds effluent discharge limit contaminant must be removed by Groundwate r Treatment Plant before discharge to Ihe Neponset River [ D = D A I L Y M A X A = A V O M O N T H L Y F=FISH]

c and 1-3 for effluent (Uscharge limits for organic and inorganic compounds An acute toxicity

test showed that no toxic effect was observed for the interim treatment discharge

114 Conclusions

Based on the results of the Phase I bench scale treatabUity study the combined unit

operations of fUtration foUowed by carbon adsorption were effective in treating the

contaminated groundwater coUected during the pumping tests for temporary discharge to the

Neponset River A sample of the discharge was coUected during the groundwater treatment

and it was found to contain less than the quantitation limit of 05 xgL of PCB The metals

concentrations were aU determined to be below the discharge criteria A sample was also

coUected and submitted for an acute toxicity determination The resuUs showed that no toxic

effect was observed The bench scale treatability results and the on-line discharge analyses

demonstrate that the filtration and carbon adsorption unit operations were effective temporary

treatment techniques

^ 12 FULL SCALE STUDY

A groundwater treatability study was conducted to evaluate the performance of four different

treatment processes on contaminated groundwater obtained from the Norwood PCB site The

contaminants present in the groundwater were determined during previous studies conducted

in May 1988 and AprU 1989 by EBASCO Chapter 1 of the Final FeasibUity Study

(EBASCO 1989c) contains an overview of the results obtained during these investigations

Based on the resuUs of the May 1988 and AprU 1989 field investigations EPA concluded

that the overburden and bedrock aquifers beneath the site were contaminated with

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and volatUe and semivolatile organic compounds (VOCs

and SVOCs) It was determined that surficial and subsurface soUs dredge pUes of sediments

taken from Meadow Brook sediments in Meadow Brook and sediments in the drainage

system of the buUding operated by Grant Gear were the sources of the contamination In

r

c September 1989 EPA released the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Norwood PCB site In

the ROD EPA directed that groundwater be treated with a system including activated carbon

air stripping with vapor controls and precipitationfiltration iEPA also directed that

treatability studies or pUot studies be conducted to aid in the overaU design of the system

In accordance with the ROD a bench scale treatabUity study was conducted at the ENSECO

Laboratory Facility in Cambridge Massachusetts by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel between

January 14 and February 16 1992 This report presents a description of the work

completed resuUs and conclusions of the study

121 Objectives

The fuU-scale groundwater treatability study was conducted to determine if treatment

consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping and carbon adsorption would effectively

remove the contamination present in the groundwater at the Norwood PCB site to appUcable

standards Information on the percent reduction of organic and inorganic compounds in the

groundwater volume type of residual and byproducts produced by each component were

also investigated A schematic detailing the treatability study and the sampling and analysis

conducted is presented in Figure 1-1

122 Description of Work

The treatability study was performed in accordance with Pre-Design Work Plan 3 and the

QuaUty Assurance Project Plan for the Phase n Bench-Scale TreatabiUty Study (Work

Plan 3)

Groundwater samples were coUected from the Norwood PCB site for use in this

investigation Interim sampling was performed on effluent streams generated from each

bench-scale process for analysis according to Table 1-4 Influent and final effluent samples

generated during the groundwater treatabiUty were coUected and analyzed through the CLP

^

o JAR TESTING SAMPLE ID

o

POLYMER TESTING

RAW GROUNDWATER

VOL 1 SVOL I p PCB f ^ ^ METALS

mdash SST

T

T

T

SS - Choose Polymer T ar)d Dose Estimate pH pf i After Coagu lant

Jar Test 1 PH10 bull

Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

Ume wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

Jar Test 2 pH9

Jar Test 3 pH8

bull

Lime w C oag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

JT1 -1 shy

j r i -2 shy

JT1 -3 shy

JTI-4

j r 2 - 1

JT2-2 shy

JT2-3

j r2-4 bull

JT3-1 shy

JT3-2shy

JT3-3 bull

JT3-4 shy

HLTRATION TESTING

RIter Paper 1 - SS T Time mdash |

RIter Paper 2 - SS T Time-

Rlter Paper 3 - SS T Time -

CtHXise Filter Paper or Particle Retention Size

Sample Well Using Bailer

VOL SVOL PCB CLPMETALS (PPF-1)

Precipitate and Filter Using Optimized Polymer pH Coagulant and Filter

lt

AIR STRIPPING

AJrWater Ratio 1

AirWater Ratio 2

AirWater Ratio3 ~

VOLmdash1

-VOL

-VOLmdash

SAMPLE ID CARBON ADSORPTION (All by CLP)

Carbon mdashVOL SVOL Metals AC-1

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-2

Dose 3 mdash ^ deg shy reg ^ deg ^^reg ^ ^

Carbon

Dose1

Carbon Dose 2

Cartwn

Dose 4

Cartxjn Dose 1

Carbon Dose2~

Carbon Dose 3

Carbon Dose4~

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-4

-VOL C-1

-VOL SVOL Metals C-2

-VOL PCB C-3

bull VOL SVOL Chronic Toxicity C-4

Jar Test 4 pH 10 Dup

bull

- Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

Jr4-1

JT4-2

JT4-3

Carbon Doses

Cartxgtn Dose 6

-VOL SVOL PCB

mdash VOL Metals

C-5

C-6

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals JT4-4

VOL = Volatile Organics SVOL = Semi Volatile Organics

Carbon Dose 7

mdashVOL SVOL C-7

SS = Suspended Solids

NaOH-MNAL JT5-1 T = Turbidity

Jar Test 5 pHIO

NaOH - wPolymer - MN AL

NaOH wPoly wCoag RItered - MN AL

JT5-2

JT5-3

NaOH wPdy wCoag Aerated andRItered - MN AL

JT5-4

^ NaOH wPdy wCoag PermanganateRItered - MN M

JT5-5

J O Special FIGURE 1-1 TREATABILITY STUDY

Optimize pH Decide Ume or NaOH

SAMPUNG AND ANALYSIS SCHEMATIC

Compare Polymer vs Coagulant

(J DF222658HW

c

c

TABLE 1-4 TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Number Bench Scale Process

Groundwater Treatability Study

Initial Groundwater

Preliminary Polymer Testing

Precipitation Supemant

FUtration Effluent

Metals Sludge Precipitated and FUtered Effluent with Groundwater CoUected with BaUer

Air Stripping Effluent

Air Stripped Carbon Adsorption Effluent

Non Air Stripped Carbon Effluent

Sludge Sample

Rock Washing Study

Initial Rocks Initial Gravel from roof Stone from Cap Washed Rocks Washed Stones

Samples

1

1 1

16 16 16

3 3

1 2 2 2

3

4 4 2 2

7 4 2 2 1 1

3 5 6 3 1

Analysis

VolatUes SemivolatUes PCB Metals Suspended SoUds pH Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity Metals VolatUe Organics

Suspended SoUds TuAidity

PCB VolatUe Organics PCB SemivolatUe Organics

VolatUe Organics

SemivolatUe Organics VolatUe Organics Metals PCB

VolatUe Organics SemivolatUe Organics Metals PCB Chronic Toxicity PCBs Metals

PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB

Laboratory

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

c

c

c

system for volatUes semivolatUes PCBs and metals AU interim samples were analyzed at

ENSECO in Cambridge Massachusetts AU data was vaUdated by MampE according to the

QAPP

1221 Groundwater Sample CoUection Groundwater for this study was coUected from

weUs MW-IA and ME-8 as shown on Figure 1-2 iMW-lA was chosen as a sampling

location because it was determined to be one of the most contaminated weUs on-site based

on previous investigations During the course of the treatabiUty study a decision was made

to obtain samples from ME-8 because results of the most recent sampling effort conducted by

ICF indicated that groundwater from this weU contained approximately 200 xgL vinyl

chloride whereas groundwater from MW-IA no longer contained any quantifiable amount

Removal of vinyl chloride by aeration needed to be demonstrated during this investigation

because vinyl chloride is not effectively removed by carbon adsorption

Groundwater samples were obtained on four separate occasions during the study as shown in

Table 1-5 On each occasion the groundwater was coUected in accordance with the Field

Sampling Plan Three weU volumes of water were purged from the weU using a centrifiigal

pump before any samples were coUected The pH temperature and conductivity of the

purge water was measured after each weU volume untU the measured values differed by less

than 10 for three consecutive samples to ensure the sample drawn was representative of the

water in the aquifer Samples for the metals precipitation and filtration study were coUected

using a centrifugal pump Samples for the air stripping and carbon adsorption study were

coUected with a teflon baUer to minimize aeration and possible loss of volatUes during

sample coUection

The samples were coUected in one gallon amber glass bottles and stored at 4degC Each

sample bottle wasfiUed to exclude a headspace in the bottle

e 10

200 200

SCALE IN FEET

D CAP ROCK SAMPLE LOCATION

bull WELLS

nOURE 1-2 GROUNDWATER AND TRENCH AND CAP

ROCK SAMPLING LOCATIONS

11

E T C A L F a EDDY

c TABLE 1-5 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING SUMMARY

Mode of Date WeU Amount Sampled pH Temp degC Conductivity SampUng

11392 MW-IA 10 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm pump

12792 MW-IA 16 gaUons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20392 MW-IA 16 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20592 ME-8 2 gallons 64 8deg 230 umhocm baUer

1222 Precipitation Testing

General Chemical precipitation for the removal of metals was evaluated at three pH values

and three polymer dosages to determine the effectiveness of the treatment A preliminary

evaluation of different coagulants and polymers was conducted at three pH values by

r Metcalf amp Eddy personnel and a leading polymer vendor to determine which chemicals could

potentiaUy be used to precipitate groundwater Based on the results from the preliminary

evaluation jar tests were conducted by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel to aid in the determination

of the chemical dosages required to optimize the effectiveness of precipitation

Polymer and Coagulent Testing Polymer testing was performed by Metcalf amp Eddy and a

leading polymer vendor at the ENSECO laboratory faciUty in Cambridge Massachusetts

The effectiveness of anionic cationic and nonioiuc polymer was evaluated at three pH

values The best polymer was determined to be Drewfloc 2270 a low charge anionic high

molecular weight polymer This polymer was used in jar tests 1 through 5 The best

coagulent was determined to be Charge Pack 12 (CP-12) a higher charge cationic low

molecular weight coagulent The CP-12 coagulent was used in jar tests 1 through 5

described under jar testing

12 c

InitiaUy the effects of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was investigated Tests c were conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 with sodium hydroxide which had the best

settling characteristics based on visual observation and turbidity measurement Each polymer

was then tested at pH = 100 to evaluate Us effectiveness under optimum pH conditions

A formula of polymer and coagulant addition was developed based on visual observations

suspended soUds and turbidity analyses performed on each sample generated during the

investigation The anionic polymer effectively flocculated the existing smaU suspended

particles and the addkion of cationic coagulant removed iron and color when the pH was

raised to 100

Jar Testing Five jar tests were performed using the polymer and coagulants determined to

be effective during preliminary testing Jar tests 1 and 4 were conducted as dupUcates at

ph 10 Jar test 2 was conducted at pH 9 jar test 3 was conducted at pH 8 and jar test 5 was

conducted at pH 10 On each occasion prior to beginning the jar test the raw groundwater

was brought tol5deg-17degCina warm water bath The temperature was held constant to c eliminate the effects of temperature on reaction rates and solubUity

The foUowing is a description of activities conducted during the jar tests fti through 4 See

Figure 1-1 for details Four samples were evaluated during each jar test For each jar test

four 15 Uter beakers were fiUed with 1 Uter of raw groundwater The beakers were placed

on the stirrer platform and the paddles were lowered into the sample The jar stirrer was

operated at 80 revolutions per minute (rpm) The pH was then adjusted to the desired value

(pH = 10 9 8 10 for Tests 1 2 3 4) with a lime slurry in two samples and with a

sodium hydroxide solution (25) in the remaining two samples Lime was added to

investigate its effects on the precipitate and to evaluate its effectiveness in pH adjustment

The cationic coagulant was then added to each sample untU the concentration in solution was

30 mgL The solution was stirred at 80 rpm for 2 minutes to ensure complete mixing The

polymer was then added to one sample pH adjusted with sodium hydroxide and one sample

pH adjusted with lime Mixing continued for two minutes Next the solution was stirred

13 c

slowly orflocculated for five minutes at 20 rpm FinaUy the solutions were aUowed to

c settle for 10 minutes Visual observations were recorded and samples were submitted for

suspended soUds turbidity and metals analyses

Jar test 5 was performed to assess the removal of manganese and aluminum by preaeration

and permanganate additions (see Figure 1-1) Because no significant benefit was observed in

the previous tests when lime was used instead of sodium hydroxide sodium hydroxide was

used to adjust the pH in aU four samples to a pH of 100 in jar test 5 Only sodium

hydroxide was added to the groundwater in the first jar to determine the removal of

manganese and aluminum attributable to the formation of an insoluble salt at high pH

Sodium hydroxide and polymer were added to the second jar to evaluate the effectiveness of

the polymer Sodium hydroxide polymer and coagulant were added to sample 4 The

supemate from sample 4 was then fUtered This was performed to determine if the required

removal efficiencies could be achieved by chemical precipitation and filtration

Permanganate was added to sample 3 in addition to sodium hydroxide coagulant and

polymer to determine if the manganese and aluminum present could be chemicaUy oxidized c to a less soluble state which would enhance the efficiency of fUtration The supemate was

then siphoned off using clean tygon tubing and a syringe into the sample containers

Samples were submitted for metals suspended soUds and turbidity as illustrated on

Figure 1-1

1223 Filtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was perfonned to determine the

optimum pore size of filter media that could effectively remove the suspended soUds in the

precipitated groundwater The determination of the removal efficiency for each filter was

based on the concentration of suspended soUds and turbidity of the filtered water The time

required to filter the groundwater was also evaluated

Prior to filtration the metals in the groundwater were precipitated and coagulent and polymer

were added using the optimum conditions developed during the precipitation study The

optimum conditions consisted of pH adjustment to 10 with sodium hydroxide addition of

14 c

coagulent CP-12 to a concentration of one percent and addition of Drewfloc 2270 polymer to

c a concentration of 10 mgl Three grades (10 xm 5 xm and 1 xm pore sizes) of filter

paper were used with a Buchner ftmnel to filter aUquots of the precipitated groundwater

Samples of the filtered water were submitted to ENSECO for suspended soUds and turbidity

analysis

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge was coUected during the treatability study The

sludge sample was submitted to the CLP system for PCB and metals analysis so that a

characterization of the sludge could be made and disposal options could be evaluated

1224 Air Stripping Testing Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at three

different air to water ratios to determine the most effective stripping ratio To ensure that

worst case volatUe organic compound concentrations were present in the samples for this

study some modifications were made in how the sample was coUected and treated First

the groundwater was coUected with a baUer to prevent the loss of volatUes AdditionaUy the

water was fUtered under positive pressure foUowing the precipitation step to minimize the c loss of volatUes that would result if the water was filtered using a vacuum pump

An aquarium pump tygon tubing and aeration stone with a glass-fiber fUter cartridge was

used to aerate 1-Uter aUquots of precipitated and filtered groundwater The aeration flow

rate was caUbrated by filling a graduated cylinder with air that had been filled with tap water

and inverted in a water bath The air was diffused at 375 missec into 1-Uter aUquots of

groundwater and the time measured as iUustrated in Table 1-6 The aerated groundwater was

submitted to ENSECO for volatUe organics analysis

1225 Carbon Adsorption Testing The effectiveness of activated carbon for the removal

of organic compounds in the groundwater at the site was evaluated The carbon used was

the powdered activated 325 mesh carbon suppUed by Calgon Corporation The groundwater

samples used for this investigation were obtained and filtered as described in the air stripping

15 c

c

c

TABLE 1-6 AERATION TEST OPERATIONS

Air to Water Ratio Volume Volume of by Volume of Water Air Reqd Min of Aeration

251 1000 ml 25000 ml 111 501 1000 ml 50000 ml 222 751 1000 ml 75000 ml 333

section of this report to minimize the loss of volatUes A total of twelve samples were mn

during this investigation The necessity of air stripping was investigated by comparing the

resuUs from four samples that were air stripped to seven samples that were treated identicaUy

with the exception of air stripping AU samples for the air stripping comparison went

through the precipitation filtration and carbon adsorption processes AdditionaUy one

sample was prepared with no carbon added to serve as an untreated sample The samples are

summarized in Table 1-7 Each groundwater sample was prepared and mixed with a

predetermined dose of Calgon powdered 325 mesh activated carbon and placed m an open

Erlenmyer flask on a shaker table for a two-hour time period at 180 rpm A rotary shaker

table capable of accommodating twelve (12)-1000 ml Erlenmyer flasks was used Effluent

was fUtered with a barrel filter using a glass-fiber pre-fUter and a Whatman 45 micron

membrane The effluent clear and odorless in aU cases was added to sample containers

preserved and packed for shipment to CLP laboratories Since the shaker table could

accommodate 12 flasks a total of approximately 4 gaUons of effluent was generated during

each mn Several mns were performed to generate adequate quantities of sample for

analysis accordmg to Table 1-7 Groundwater was simUarly prepared for submittal to

Aquatec Lab in Burlington Vermont for chronic toxicity testing Three (3) shipments of

approximately 2 gaUons each were made

r 16

C) o o TABLE 1-7 CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation Filtration Aeration amp Carbon

AC-1 05 V SV MET 3400 3 1067 054 AC-2 20 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 22 AC-3 50 V SV MET 3400 3 1133 57 AC-4 100 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 110 AC-5 Trip Blank 0 V

Precipitation Filtration amp Carbon

C-0 0 V 500 1 500 0

C-1 05 V SV MET 3200 3 1067 053

c-2 10 V PCB 2200 2 1100 11

C-3 20 V SV CT 29000 24 1250 25

C-4 50 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 55

C-17 70 V MET 1200 1 1200 70

C-18 100 V SV 2200 2 1100 110

C-13 Treatability Blank 0 V PCB 2200 0 0 0

C-20 Trip Blank 0 V 0

C-10 Duplicate of C-1 05 SV 2000 2 1000 05

C-1 05 (MSMSD) 500 1 500 025

C-11 Duplicate of C-1 05 MET 1000 1 1000 05

C-20 Duplicate of C-2 10 V PCB (MSMSD)

4400 4 1100 11

C-16 Duplicate of C-4 50 PCB 2000 2 1000 50

C-6 0 PCB 2000 2 1000 0

17

o o n TABLE 1-7 (Continued) CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation amp Filtration

PPF-1 V SV MET PCB 2000 2 1000 0

Sludge

Sludge-1 0 MET PCB 0

V = VolatUe organics SV = Semivolatile organics MET = Metals PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls CT = Chronic toxicity MSMSD = Matrix spikematrix spike dup D = DupUcate TB = Trip blank PPF = Precipitated and pressure filtered

(to minimize volatUes loss as opposed to vacuum filtration)

18

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

o C) o TABLE 1-2 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER WITH EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

bull v - o x - - - - - - - - bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - - bull bull bull

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull gt bull bull bull bull gt bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull o gt pMWmmmXiiizz-mm^ 4SoSiSSiyS iSs DAILY - AVQ ^bull sectMMMsectMM mM i^i^^^^

W^MM^0 i ^^ ^ i ^ ^ ) ) ^ ^ ^ ^

liffiSaiArtiMifiig wampsectii^i9MMzWMM^lt

i 0 t M B W ^ SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE

-yio|ijMi i|5|laquoiilifc^ li^Oimim

PHASEn PHASE I PHASE

SURFACE BEDROCK BEDROCK

SjiA3tliilAM|li-^ isiowfciili^rBo^

(van) (uan) (uou

PHASEE

BEDROCK

fuow

iiHiisii BEDROCK

iiiiiiiiiixiii ixc ilfeiiili f-iO(3Msect

Wyt(Bm m^mmM miimmiM camamm WmM-M

|ii|iiiU-S |JipSEsiit||l ^ ^

Mi(iiteiii iciiiiitiii f-Wi^WM

ilii^y^iii illi^i^liliiiSl-liN lGipilaquooiraquoi|i|ii| ^^^ljMm$m-

MAXIMUM

EFFLUENT

DISCHARGE

bull^ bull bull L E V E L bullbullbull

(U6L) (8gt(gt)

MONTHLY

EFFLUENT

DISCHAROE

bull iLEVEL bullbull

(tlOLi (8)(9)

bull||yensi|| W0fW^iz

DISCHAROE

sectBlWW$W ( U a U (8)(9)

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull

iiil iW^

VOLATILE OROANICS

111-TricUoiocthuie 3 3 - - NC NC 170000 NC NC 68850000

M^iM^l ia i t i^^ W MMf ^ ^ i ^ M

Vinyl Chloride

mMWMimMilBMMM iil|||i||i||i|||||

14 14 73

SSi5i5

W S X i i m S M 120 23 6S 110

bull -

bull bull T

no

Wfimmim ISiMBB

NC

llliNGSM iiiipltiiii

NC

bulliiSfi4i|ii-

li PIiAlio|jifshy-3250

mimpmamp wwrnmim-NC

ampampllz-^f^C

Wwyen WM NC

170100

bull bull bull bull shy bull ^ raquo - S 5 lt gt

2126250

12-Dieliloroethene (toUl) 77 300 199 560 44 68 43 no 11600 (13) NC 1400000 (4) 4698000 NC 567000000

|||iiSi^i||laquo|||ii^^^^^^^^

Xylenei (total)

kz^z23i(iwMitiMM^^ W0$0Tisectsectg^^

6 6 shy

|isii7Pois

WlampMlMampW0 - shy shy shy

i-wip

-

z4smmm lmm0(M

NC

sSiiiraquolii(i)l iilltlaquoili

NC

i--iii ii -^lli||Piiiii

NC

ioisiaiiiSipop lsectfiMm

NC

i-Mti969M)

i - zF ^M SC

372ib0

$$laquo43

NC

bullWz-i

SEMIVOLATILES

23S-Trichioioi)beaol 10 10 - - NC NC NC NC NC NC

j|NiiwUfl|ropw^^

13-Dictiloiobeiizeiie

sectMimiMmm^ i|il||||iii|i||i

4 4 shy

i-siJ(t| ii|i WSMWiMMMiWMMM^

-

WMsect M WBWWrshy-

MiMxim- $MM^Mz

NO

m-z^mmi m^msmm NC

IM---iiiMMM WzMW Sk

2600

|Siii laquowq zz^Wlt^^

NC

bullMz-zziMii WzlMM

NC

kiMAz-iMampi WmtW^

1053000

14-Dichlorobenzeiie 14 14 48 67 shy shy shy - NC NC 2600 NC NC 1053000

| i i | l i t j | i i | i | ^

ii|ii|llllilill^ bullimMmMMiiMWMM ghif^m^MmMmiM^

iSmMMyMMsectsectMfziM^ i||||i|i |i|j|||^

bulliMMiiM ^zZ^ZzZZZZ^

^ --zllMMmd |sii|i|ii|

- ISSiiii lls-^iiil

i^iMM^i-iM wiiiW^Sz

iliiO-ii i l- iif-iiiii

WM--z ampiM fampMM

f bull iSilwiobtti

|i|3jl|i|

P C B I

Aioclor-1254 34 180 26 89 64 8 24 27 20 fT) 0014 CT) 00045 810 57 18 AF

secti^^MMMampMM^^ Aroclor-1254 (paper-filtered)

Arociot-124S

BM iM-mi-MmsectMMMiz iiili|iiililiiiliiliiiii

- - l i

liJii -rilSiiiiiil

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii l-l il shy shy -

ilJi|i i-sectsectMBsect i

-

j 0 lt7) iOjCT)

20 (7)

Oi014 (7)

001 (7)

0014 CD

immmmB WMi^MampMi

00IM5

MM--zMshyi bulll l i l i |iloi

^

-bull-iigtM

WsectM0-amp 57

nzzmmm mlBWM

18

V

Aroclof-1248 (ghit-filteRd) 4 4 shy shy shy - 20 (7) 0014 CT) 00045 810 57 18 F

Phaie I RI umpling conducted in May 1988 Phaae II RI lampling conducted in April 1989

NC bull No criteria cxitta for thia compound

(1) Inaufficient Data to Develop Criteria Value preaented ia LOEL shy Loweit Obierved Effect Level

(2) Value preaented for carelnogeiia ia the 10-5 level

(3) Value preaented ia for dichloroethenea

(4) Value preieoted ia for trana 12-dichloroetliene

(5) pH dependent criteria (78 pH uted)

(6) Value preaented ia for chlorinated benzenea

(7) Value presented ia for total PCBa

(8) Effluent DiKhaige Limit based upon an effluent discharge of 5 gpm to the Neponset River during the 7-day low flow lOyr recurrence (2O20gpm)

USGS Pleasant Street Oauging Station on the Neponset River

(9) Dilution factor =[(5gpm+2020gpm)5gpml= 405

(lO)Concentration exceeds effluent discharge limit contaminant must be removed by Groundwater Treatment Plant before discharge to surface water [D=DAILY MAX A=AVG MONTHLY F=FISH]

-

-

-

- - -

-

-

-

-

-

o n o TABLE 1-3 COMPARISON OF METAL CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER WFTH EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull bull bull bull gt gt bull gt bull bull bull bull bull - bull bulliii|vO|| iS iggJMLnei i iaD s-UNFILTEREDgssHis M-B33nsRmmMMM D A I L Y iiiiiiiiiiiiiAVGiiiiii |i mmmmMmmm Xy lira^li P H A S E I WtiiMM liwiAiiiii iiiiimiii iii-pHiwiiliiiii WampMM P H A S E I ilii iiwgiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiili|i| iiii iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii M A X I M U M iiiiipifriiii^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiiifiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

555^gt5^5V555^^^^ i i i ilaquoiij S U R F A C E m m m Wtm^itM B E D R O C K bull bull gt f t bullbullbull B E D R O C K iiiFRiiliiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiijsiiiiiriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii|iiiiiiliiiiiiii E F F L U E N T E F F L U E N T E F F L U E N T iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii wmmm |||ii||li| |i IliAiiiiil WliampiMM liiiiltiilii^isiiii liiiiifctAXliii iiiAiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^i^iibhreiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii liiiiiii iiHiiiiiiiiiiiiii- D I S C H A R O E D I S C H A R O E D I S C H A R O E iiiii imm^mi mmmn WmMm WBrnB

PARAlt4ETER W iMmm iiiiiiiii iiitjiiiii Wi^MMM iiii iiiiiiiiilii iiiaraquoliiii W-imMMi iiiiiiaiiiii mMmmmm iCSiiMAiiiiii O O N S U M P iiiiiiiVEitiiii liiiiisyifeEiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiitiiiiL iiii cii^i iiiiiifl|5iili iiiiiiili (UOW iiiiiiii (oon) iiiiult3piili (UOL) lzMcii0m (UGL) iipiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|^(Siliiiiiiiiii|iiiiii (UOL) (2) (UOL) (6)C7) (IKJL) (6)C7) (UOn) (6) C7) i^iipi

M E T A L S

A h m i n u m 154000 390000 119 352 12500 43900 74 77 NA NA NA NC NC NC

i^poundi1i liiiiiii^iii iiiiiiiPi iii|ilsi iliiiJsiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iii-iili liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii-raquoiiiilti)ij^i JiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiW)i(5i iiiiiiiiiiiiii6Pigtiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiS5iraquoii)i iiiiiitiraquo50 iiiiii3f laquoltraquollishyJ^Sn^iii-illii iiiillifil II |-Iilliiii WlampMi liiliii-ii iiiiiiiifiiiiiili 22a iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii^iiiliiiiiii iiiiiiiiN iiiiiiliiiiiiiii iii-iiiiiiiiiii ifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii fiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiii i iiiiii i j ^ i iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiip iiiiiiiii Bar ium 690 1640 67 2laquo9 53 147 97 19 NC NC NC (5) NC NC NC Beryll ium 18 32 130 (1) 53 (1) 131 52650 2147 531

|^i^ii|litx i s bull liillliSi ZZZZZZZZZ i|||i-^i - iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiii --i|yiiiWi iiiifslt^laquoiiiiiii3jiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiltfcjii i(3yiiiliii iiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiJC iiii-S iifiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMi iiiiiiilii154- bull i i - i i6laquo856i mzMkm iiiiiiiliiii ii|iijji||ii|||i 9lMMi MmiMi zZ^ mm iiiiiiiifi li^iiiiiiiiiraquoliiii 33100 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilMi^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiieiiiii^iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Pi iiiiiiiiiiiiNti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij^i

Chromium 206 526 1 8 18 34 104 16 W 11 (4) 3200 (4) 648b 4455 1296000 -Cobal t 113 295 19 22 36 40 NC NC NC NC NC NC

fMgtimi-^ztm zmisectmi iMiMM wmmi M^iiiiampii iiJiiM 189 iiiiiiiiiisiiiiiilaquo3iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifii iiiiiiiiiiiliiiii^-iiiii isiiiiiiiiiiisiiiii CJiiiiiijiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiStCiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM bullsiiiii iiiiiiili5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiigtireii iiiiiiii-shy bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull iiiiiiliiiiiiWiii bull bull laquo raquo - iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiilifii iiiiiiiiiiii iii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii l i i i i i i i i i i^ i l l l i s i i iiiiii i-iiiiiiiSiiiiiiisiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|fltii- 405000 iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiwii iiiiAiiishymBmmm imampmm WmMM Wimm iiiiillili iiiiiiiiliiiiiii

Lead 43 i t3 21 168 l i 37 30 168 14 (3) 054 p) NC 5670 219 NC

Magnes ium 42400 148000 3950 8990 8630 21100 5040 11200 NC NC NC NC NC NC

iiititlj^iusibiii^j iilllJii^ -M-W^M iiiiiiii^^i^ ii-|7laquo- L5W iiiiiiiiiiiiiilliiifii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiltiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii ii5iiiiiiie iiiiiiiiiiii bullbull bull l t raquo iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNC iiiiiiii isci i i i | | i i i | | i p i i II0M^I iiiiiliiiiiiiiilii WM^MmM ilillilflil i | | | l il |o| | l i i l i P liiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiip8iii bullbull ( U si i l i l i iiiiii- iiii-li|i5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiipiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiii -i- o-iil bull iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiii laquoiii

Nicke l 164 452 64 104 643 (3) 33 (3) 3800 260415 13365 1539000 -Potaaaium 13100 33400 2800 5420 4580 9790 3280 5780 NC NC NC NC NC NC

i|i3laquo|i |s||i ilsectiampim illii|li MmMm iiliil|^i7ii il-lii^|iiraquoiii- (iiltii iliiiiiii^iiiiili^^^ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiii2iwiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiliis lt 6800 ii5iiiiiiiyilaquoJpll i iiiiiiiiiifiiil ^iiilOWi iiiiiii3^lHWraquoi iiiiii--i

|i|||ii Iliii illl|iillSI |illliSl^| illillaquoii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiliiltiii laquo raquo iiiiiiiiiiiii||i||| iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii|i|ltoigttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiliiiiilii iiiiiiiiiiiii bull^bull i l iNc| i-|iiiii -i-iii ii gti5 i iiiiiiiili^^ iiiiiiiiiiii Oiiiiiiii|i bulliiiiiiii Sodium 14100 28900 12500 26raquo00 16320 33200 16300 68000 N c NC NC Nc NC Nc Thal l ium 10 10 58 10 1400 (1) 40 (1) 32 567000 16200 1296

igtPiiiilli MmmmiM liilililil iiliiiiisii iii|ii| bulliiii iiiiiisiiilii iiiiiiiiiiiii|i ii^|i iiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii iiiiiiii ii^iliiiiiiiNiilliiiiiiiji- bulli|iiiiiflaquoSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii|lNe-|i-ii iiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Nc iiiiiii liiNCii iiiiiii iiiiiiiilifiei iiiii iiiiiii iilaquo|||il| mmmmi m m m i M iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisil i iiiisiiiiilllii iiiiliiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiitii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiii iiiiiiliili-|s4ii iiilliiiiiiii ssiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii^^iii-iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii 13365 iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiip^ P b a i e I RI sampling conducted in M a y 1988 Phase II RI samplmg conducted in Apri l 1989

N C = N o cri teria exiata for th is compotmd

N A = N o t Available

(1) Insufficient Data to Develop Cri ter ia Value presented is L O E L - Lowest Observed Effect Level

(2) Value preaented for careinogena ia the 10-S level

(3) Hardness dependent c r i te r ia (25 mgA C A C 0 3 uaed)

(4) Value presented is for Ihe m o r e toxic hexavalent form

(5) Value presented is proposed (more conservat ive)

(6) Effluent Discharge L imi t dilution factor based upon an effluent discbarge of 5 gpm to the Neponse t River during the 7 - d a y low flow lOyr recurrence (2020gpm)

USOS Pleasant Street Oaug ing atation on the Neponset River

(7) Dilut ion factor =[(Sgpm+2020gpm)Sgpm]= 405

(lO)Concentration exceeds effluent discharge limit contaminant must be removed by Groundwate r Treatment Plant before discharge to Ihe Neponset River [ D = D A I L Y M A X A = A V O M O N T H L Y F=FISH]

c and 1-3 for effluent (Uscharge limits for organic and inorganic compounds An acute toxicity

test showed that no toxic effect was observed for the interim treatment discharge

114 Conclusions

Based on the results of the Phase I bench scale treatabUity study the combined unit

operations of fUtration foUowed by carbon adsorption were effective in treating the

contaminated groundwater coUected during the pumping tests for temporary discharge to the

Neponset River A sample of the discharge was coUected during the groundwater treatment

and it was found to contain less than the quantitation limit of 05 xgL of PCB The metals

concentrations were aU determined to be below the discharge criteria A sample was also

coUected and submitted for an acute toxicity determination The resuUs showed that no toxic

effect was observed The bench scale treatability results and the on-line discharge analyses

demonstrate that the filtration and carbon adsorption unit operations were effective temporary

treatment techniques

^ 12 FULL SCALE STUDY

A groundwater treatability study was conducted to evaluate the performance of four different

treatment processes on contaminated groundwater obtained from the Norwood PCB site The

contaminants present in the groundwater were determined during previous studies conducted

in May 1988 and AprU 1989 by EBASCO Chapter 1 of the Final FeasibUity Study

(EBASCO 1989c) contains an overview of the results obtained during these investigations

Based on the resuUs of the May 1988 and AprU 1989 field investigations EPA concluded

that the overburden and bedrock aquifers beneath the site were contaminated with

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and volatUe and semivolatile organic compounds (VOCs

and SVOCs) It was determined that surficial and subsurface soUs dredge pUes of sediments

taken from Meadow Brook sediments in Meadow Brook and sediments in the drainage

system of the buUding operated by Grant Gear were the sources of the contamination In

r

c September 1989 EPA released the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Norwood PCB site In

the ROD EPA directed that groundwater be treated with a system including activated carbon

air stripping with vapor controls and precipitationfiltration iEPA also directed that

treatability studies or pUot studies be conducted to aid in the overaU design of the system

In accordance with the ROD a bench scale treatabUity study was conducted at the ENSECO

Laboratory Facility in Cambridge Massachusetts by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel between

January 14 and February 16 1992 This report presents a description of the work

completed resuUs and conclusions of the study

121 Objectives

The fuU-scale groundwater treatability study was conducted to determine if treatment

consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping and carbon adsorption would effectively

remove the contamination present in the groundwater at the Norwood PCB site to appUcable

standards Information on the percent reduction of organic and inorganic compounds in the

groundwater volume type of residual and byproducts produced by each component were

also investigated A schematic detailing the treatability study and the sampling and analysis

conducted is presented in Figure 1-1

122 Description of Work

The treatability study was performed in accordance with Pre-Design Work Plan 3 and the

QuaUty Assurance Project Plan for the Phase n Bench-Scale TreatabiUty Study (Work

Plan 3)

Groundwater samples were coUected from the Norwood PCB site for use in this

investigation Interim sampling was performed on effluent streams generated from each

bench-scale process for analysis according to Table 1-4 Influent and final effluent samples

generated during the groundwater treatabiUty were coUected and analyzed through the CLP

^

o JAR TESTING SAMPLE ID

o

POLYMER TESTING

RAW GROUNDWATER

VOL 1 SVOL I p PCB f ^ ^ METALS

mdash SST

T

T

T

SS - Choose Polymer T ar)d Dose Estimate pH pf i After Coagu lant

Jar Test 1 PH10 bull

Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

Ume wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

Jar Test 2 pH9

Jar Test 3 pH8

bull

Lime w C oag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

JT1 -1 shy

j r i -2 shy

JT1 -3 shy

JTI-4

j r 2 - 1

JT2-2 shy

JT2-3

j r2-4 bull

JT3-1 shy

JT3-2shy

JT3-3 bull

JT3-4 shy

HLTRATION TESTING

RIter Paper 1 - SS T Time mdash |

RIter Paper 2 - SS T Time-

Rlter Paper 3 - SS T Time -

CtHXise Filter Paper or Particle Retention Size

Sample Well Using Bailer

VOL SVOL PCB CLPMETALS (PPF-1)

Precipitate and Filter Using Optimized Polymer pH Coagulant and Filter

lt

AIR STRIPPING

AJrWater Ratio 1

AirWater Ratio 2

AirWater Ratio3 ~

VOLmdash1

-VOL

-VOLmdash

SAMPLE ID CARBON ADSORPTION (All by CLP)

Carbon mdashVOL SVOL Metals AC-1

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-2

Dose 3 mdash ^ deg shy reg ^ deg ^^reg ^ ^

Carbon

Dose1

Carbon Dose 2

Cartwn

Dose 4

Cartxjn Dose 1

Carbon Dose2~

Carbon Dose 3

Carbon Dose4~

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-4

-VOL C-1

-VOL SVOL Metals C-2

-VOL PCB C-3

bull VOL SVOL Chronic Toxicity C-4

Jar Test 4 pH 10 Dup

bull

- Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

Jr4-1

JT4-2

JT4-3

Carbon Doses

Cartxgtn Dose 6

-VOL SVOL PCB

mdash VOL Metals

C-5

C-6

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals JT4-4

VOL = Volatile Organics SVOL = Semi Volatile Organics

Carbon Dose 7

mdashVOL SVOL C-7

SS = Suspended Solids

NaOH-MNAL JT5-1 T = Turbidity

Jar Test 5 pHIO

NaOH - wPolymer - MN AL

NaOH wPoly wCoag RItered - MN AL

JT5-2

JT5-3

NaOH wPdy wCoag Aerated andRItered - MN AL

JT5-4

^ NaOH wPdy wCoag PermanganateRItered - MN M

JT5-5

J O Special FIGURE 1-1 TREATABILITY STUDY

Optimize pH Decide Ume or NaOH

SAMPUNG AND ANALYSIS SCHEMATIC

Compare Polymer vs Coagulant

(J DF222658HW

c

c

TABLE 1-4 TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Number Bench Scale Process

Groundwater Treatability Study

Initial Groundwater

Preliminary Polymer Testing

Precipitation Supemant

FUtration Effluent

Metals Sludge Precipitated and FUtered Effluent with Groundwater CoUected with BaUer

Air Stripping Effluent

Air Stripped Carbon Adsorption Effluent

Non Air Stripped Carbon Effluent

Sludge Sample

Rock Washing Study

Initial Rocks Initial Gravel from roof Stone from Cap Washed Rocks Washed Stones

Samples

1

1 1

16 16 16

3 3

1 2 2 2

3

4 4 2 2

7 4 2 2 1 1

3 5 6 3 1

Analysis

VolatUes SemivolatUes PCB Metals Suspended SoUds pH Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity Metals VolatUe Organics

Suspended SoUds TuAidity

PCB VolatUe Organics PCB SemivolatUe Organics

VolatUe Organics

SemivolatUe Organics VolatUe Organics Metals PCB

VolatUe Organics SemivolatUe Organics Metals PCB Chronic Toxicity PCBs Metals

PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB

Laboratory

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

c

c

c

system for volatUes semivolatUes PCBs and metals AU interim samples were analyzed at

ENSECO in Cambridge Massachusetts AU data was vaUdated by MampE according to the

QAPP

1221 Groundwater Sample CoUection Groundwater for this study was coUected from

weUs MW-IA and ME-8 as shown on Figure 1-2 iMW-lA was chosen as a sampling

location because it was determined to be one of the most contaminated weUs on-site based

on previous investigations During the course of the treatabiUty study a decision was made

to obtain samples from ME-8 because results of the most recent sampling effort conducted by

ICF indicated that groundwater from this weU contained approximately 200 xgL vinyl

chloride whereas groundwater from MW-IA no longer contained any quantifiable amount

Removal of vinyl chloride by aeration needed to be demonstrated during this investigation

because vinyl chloride is not effectively removed by carbon adsorption

Groundwater samples were obtained on four separate occasions during the study as shown in

Table 1-5 On each occasion the groundwater was coUected in accordance with the Field

Sampling Plan Three weU volumes of water were purged from the weU using a centrifiigal

pump before any samples were coUected The pH temperature and conductivity of the

purge water was measured after each weU volume untU the measured values differed by less

than 10 for three consecutive samples to ensure the sample drawn was representative of the

water in the aquifer Samples for the metals precipitation and filtration study were coUected

using a centrifugal pump Samples for the air stripping and carbon adsorption study were

coUected with a teflon baUer to minimize aeration and possible loss of volatUes during

sample coUection

The samples were coUected in one gallon amber glass bottles and stored at 4degC Each

sample bottle wasfiUed to exclude a headspace in the bottle

e 10

200 200

SCALE IN FEET

D CAP ROCK SAMPLE LOCATION

bull WELLS

nOURE 1-2 GROUNDWATER AND TRENCH AND CAP

ROCK SAMPLING LOCATIONS

11

E T C A L F a EDDY

c TABLE 1-5 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING SUMMARY

Mode of Date WeU Amount Sampled pH Temp degC Conductivity SampUng

11392 MW-IA 10 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm pump

12792 MW-IA 16 gaUons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20392 MW-IA 16 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20592 ME-8 2 gallons 64 8deg 230 umhocm baUer

1222 Precipitation Testing

General Chemical precipitation for the removal of metals was evaluated at three pH values

and three polymer dosages to determine the effectiveness of the treatment A preliminary

evaluation of different coagulants and polymers was conducted at three pH values by

r Metcalf amp Eddy personnel and a leading polymer vendor to determine which chemicals could

potentiaUy be used to precipitate groundwater Based on the results from the preliminary

evaluation jar tests were conducted by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel to aid in the determination

of the chemical dosages required to optimize the effectiveness of precipitation

Polymer and Coagulent Testing Polymer testing was performed by Metcalf amp Eddy and a

leading polymer vendor at the ENSECO laboratory faciUty in Cambridge Massachusetts

The effectiveness of anionic cationic and nonioiuc polymer was evaluated at three pH

values The best polymer was determined to be Drewfloc 2270 a low charge anionic high

molecular weight polymer This polymer was used in jar tests 1 through 5 The best

coagulent was determined to be Charge Pack 12 (CP-12) a higher charge cationic low

molecular weight coagulent The CP-12 coagulent was used in jar tests 1 through 5

described under jar testing

12 c

InitiaUy the effects of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was investigated Tests c were conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 with sodium hydroxide which had the best

settling characteristics based on visual observation and turbidity measurement Each polymer

was then tested at pH = 100 to evaluate Us effectiveness under optimum pH conditions

A formula of polymer and coagulant addition was developed based on visual observations

suspended soUds and turbidity analyses performed on each sample generated during the

investigation The anionic polymer effectively flocculated the existing smaU suspended

particles and the addkion of cationic coagulant removed iron and color when the pH was

raised to 100

Jar Testing Five jar tests were performed using the polymer and coagulants determined to

be effective during preliminary testing Jar tests 1 and 4 were conducted as dupUcates at

ph 10 Jar test 2 was conducted at pH 9 jar test 3 was conducted at pH 8 and jar test 5 was

conducted at pH 10 On each occasion prior to beginning the jar test the raw groundwater

was brought tol5deg-17degCina warm water bath The temperature was held constant to c eliminate the effects of temperature on reaction rates and solubUity

The foUowing is a description of activities conducted during the jar tests fti through 4 See

Figure 1-1 for details Four samples were evaluated during each jar test For each jar test

four 15 Uter beakers were fiUed with 1 Uter of raw groundwater The beakers were placed

on the stirrer platform and the paddles were lowered into the sample The jar stirrer was

operated at 80 revolutions per minute (rpm) The pH was then adjusted to the desired value

(pH = 10 9 8 10 for Tests 1 2 3 4) with a lime slurry in two samples and with a

sodium hydroxide solution (25) in the remaining two samples Lime was added to

investigate its effects on the precipitate and to evaluate its effectiveness in pH adjustment

The cationic coagulant was then added to each sample untU the concentration in solution was

30 mgL The solution was stirred at 80 rpm for 2 minutes to ensure complete mixing The

polymer was then added to one sample pH adjusted with sodium hydroxide and one sample

pH adjusted with lime Mixing continued for two minutes Next the solution was stirred

13 c

slowly orflocculated for five minutes at 20 rpm FinaUy the solutions were aUowed to

c settle for 10 minutes Visual observations were recorded and samples were submitted for

suspended soUds turbidity and metals analyses

Jar test 5 was performed to assess the removal of manganese and aluminum by preaeration

and permanganate additions (see Figure 1-1) Because no significant benefit was observed in

the previous tests when lime was used instead of sodium hydroxide sodium hydroxide was

used to adjust the pH in aU four samples to a pH of 100 in jar test 5 Only sodium

hydroxide was added to the groundwater in the first jar to determine the removal of

manganese and aluminum attributable to the formation of an insoluble salt at high pH

Sodium hydroxide and polymer were added to the second jar to evaluate the effectiveness of

the polymer Sodium hydroxide polymer and coagulant were added to sample 4 The

supemate from sample 4 was then fUtered This was performed to determine if the required

removal efficiencies could be achieved by chemical precipitation and filtration

Permanganate was added to sample 3 in addition to sodium hydroxide coagulant and

polymer to determine if the manganese and aluminum present could be chemicaUy oxidized c to a less soluble state which would enhance the efficiency of fUtration The supemate was

then siphoned off using clean tygon tubing and a syringe into the sample containers

Samples were submitted for metals suspended soUds and turbidity as illustrated on

Figure 1-1

1223 Filtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was perfonned to determine the

optimum pore size of filter media that could effectively remove the suspended soUds in the

precipitated groundwater The determination of the removal efficiency for each filter was

based on the concentration of suspended soUds and turbidity of the filtered water The time

required to filter the groundwater was also evaluated

Prior to filtration the metals in the groundwater were precipitated and coagulent and polymer

were added using the optimum conditions developed during the precipitation study The

optimum conditions consisted of pH adjustment to 10 with sodium hydroxide addition of

14 c

coagulent CP-12 to a concentration of one percent and addition of Drewfloc 2270 polymer to

c a concentration of 10 mgl Three grades (10 xm 5 xm and 1 xm pore sizes) of filter

paper were used with a Buchner ftmnel to filter aUquots of the precipitated groundwater

Samples of the filtered water were submitted to ENSECO for suspended soUds and turbidity

analysis

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge was coUected during the treatability study The

sludge sample was submitted to the CLP system for PCB and metals analysis so that a

characterization of the sludge could be made and disposal options could be evaluated

1224 Air Stripping Testing Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at three

different air to water ratios to determine the most effective stripping ratio To ensure that

worst case volatUe organic compound concentrations were present in the samples for this

study some modifications were made in how the sample was coUected and treated First

the groundwater was coUected with a baUer to prevent the loss of volatUes AdditionaUy the

water was fUtered under positive pressure foUowing the precipitation step to minimize the c loss of volatUes that would result if the water was filtered using a vacuum pump

An aquarium pump tygon tubing and aeration stone with a glass-fiber fUter cartridge was

used to aerate 1-Uter aUquots of precipitated and filtered groundwater The aeration flow

rate was caUbrated by filling a graduated cylinder with air that had been filled with tap water

and inverted in a water bath The air was diffused at 375 missec into 1-Uter aUquots of

groundwater and the time measured as iUustrated in Table 1-6 The aerated groundwater was

submitted to ENSECO for volatUe organics analysis

1225 Carbon Adsorption Testing The effectiveness of activated carbon for the removal

of organic compounds in the groundwater at the site was evaluated The carbon used was

the powdered activated 325 mesh carbon suppUed by Calgon Corporation The groundwater

samples used for this investigation were obtained and filtered as described in the air stripping

15 c

c

c

TABLE 1-6 AERATION TEST OPERATIONS

Air to Water Ratio Volume Volume of by Volume of Water Air Reqd Min of Aeration

251 1000 ml 25000 ml 111 501 1000 ml 50000 ml 222 751 1000 ml 75000 ml 333

section of this report to minimize the loss of volatUes A total of twelve samples were mn

during this investigation The necessity of air stripping was investigated by comparing the

resuUs from four samples that were air stripped to seven samples that were treated identicaUy

with the exception of air stripping AU samples for the air stripping comparison went

through the precipitation filtration and carbon adsorption processes AdditionaUy one

sample was prepared with no carbon added to serve as an untreated sample The samples are

summarized in Table 1-7 Each groundwater sample was prepared and mixed with a

predetermined dose of Calgon powdered 325 mesh activated carbon and placed m an open

Erlenmyer flask on a shaker table for a two-hour time period at 180 rpm A rotary shaker

table capable of accommodating twelve (12)-1000 ml Erlenmyer flasks was used Effluent

was fUtered with a barrel filter using a glass-fiber pre-fUter and a Whatman 45 micron

membrane The effluent clear and odorless in aU cases was added to sample containers

preserved and packed for shipment to CLP laboratories Since the shaker table could

accommodate 12 flasks a total of approximately 4 gaUons of effluent was generated during

each mn Several mns were performed to generate adequate quantities of sample for

analysis accordmg to Table 1-7 Groundwater was simUarly prepared for submittal to

Aquatec Lab in Burlington Vermont for chronic toxicity testing Three (3) shipments of

approximately 2 gaUons each were made

r 16

C) o o TABLE 1-7 CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation Filtration Aeration amp Carbon

AC-1 05 V SV MET 3400 3 1067 054 AC-2 20 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 22 AC-3 50 V SV MET 3400 3 1133 57 AC-4 100 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 110 AC-5 Trip Blank 0 V

Precipitation Filtration amp Carbon

C-0 0 V 500 1 500 0

C-1 05 V SV MET 3200 3 1067 053

c-2 10 V PCB 2200 2 1100 11

C-3 20 V SV CT 29000 24 1250 25

C-4 50 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 55

C-17 70 V MET 1200 1 1200 70

C-18 100 V SV 2200 2 1100 110

C-13 Treatability Blank 0 V PCB 2200 0 0 0

C-20 Trip Blank 0 V 0

C-10 Duplicate of C-1 05 SV 2000 2 1000 05

C-1 05 (MSMSD) 500 1 500 025

C-11 Duplicate of C-1 05 MET 1000 1 1000 05

C-20 Duplicate of C-2 10 V PCB (MSMSD)

4400 4 1100 11

C-16 Duplicate of C-4 50 PCB 2000 2 1000 50

C-6 0 PCB 2000 2 1000 0

17

o o n TABLE 1-7 (Continued) CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation amp Filtration

PPF-1 V SV MET PCB 2000 2 1000 0

Sludge

Sludge-1 0 MET PCB 0

V = VolatUe organics SV = Semivolatile organics MET = Metals PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls CT = Chronic toxicity MSMSD = Matrix spikematrix spike dup D = DupUcate TB = Trip blank PPF = Precipitated and pressure filtered

(to minimize volatUes loss as opposed to vacuum filtration)

18

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

-

-

-

- - -

-

-

-

-

-

o n o TABLE 1-3 COMPARISON OF METAL CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER WFTH EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull bull bull bull gt gt bull gt bull bull bull bull bull - bull bulliii|vO|| iS iggJMLnei i iaD s-UNFILTEREDgssHis M-B33nsRmmMMM D A I L Y iiiiiiiiiiiiiAVGiiiiii |i mmmmMmmm Xy lira^li P H A S E I WtiiMM liwiAiiiii iiiiimiii iii-pHiwiiliiiii WampMM P H A S E I ilii iiwgiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiili|i| iiii iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii M A X I M U M iiiiipifriiii^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiiifiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

555^gt5^5V555^^^^ i i i ilaquoiij S U R F A C E m m m Wtm^itM B E D R O C K bull bull gt f t bullbullbull B E D R O C K iiiFRiiliiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiijsiiiiiriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii|iiiiiiliiiiiiii E F F L U E N T E F F L U E N T E F F L U E N T iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii wmmm |||ii||li| |i IliAiiiiil WliampiMM liiiiltiilii^isiiii liiiiifctAXliii iiiAiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^i^iibhreiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii liiiiiii iiHiiiiiiiiiiiiii- D I S C H A R O E D I S C H A R O E D I S C H A R O E iiiii imm^mi mmmn WmMm WBrnB

PARAlt4ETER W iMmm iiiiiiiii iiitjiiiii Wi^MMM iiii iiiiiiiiilii iiiaraquoliiii W-imMMi iiiiiiaiiiii mMmmmm iCSiiMAiiiiii O O N S U M P iiiiiiiVEitiiii liiiiisyifeEiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiitiiiiL iiii cii^i iiiiiifl|5iili iiiiiiili (UOW iiiiiiii (oon) iiiiult3piili (UOL) lzMcii0m (UGL) iipiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|^(Siliiiiiiiiii|iiiiii (UOL) (2) (UOL) (6)C7) (IKJL) (6)C7) (UOn) (6) C7) i^iipi

M E T A L S

A h m i n u m 154000 390000 119 352 12500 43900 74 77 NA NA NA NC NC NC

i^poundi1i liiiiiii^iii iiiiiiiPi iii|ilsi iliiiJsiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iii-iili liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii-raquoiiiilti)ij^i JiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiW)i(5i iiiiiiiiiiiiii6Pigtiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiS5iraquoii)i iiiiiitiraquo50 iiiiii3f laquoltraquollishyJ^Sn^iii-illii iiiillifil II |-Iilliiii WlampMi liiliii-ii iiiiiiiifiiiiiili 22a iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii^iiiliiiiiii iiiiiiiiN iiiiiiliiiiiiiii iii-iiiiiiiiiii ifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii fiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiii i iiiiii i j ^ i iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiip iiiiiiiii Bar ium 690 1640 67 2laquo9 53 147 97 19 NC NC NC (5) NC NC NC Beryll ium 18 32 130 (1) 53 (1) 131 52650 2147 531

|^i^ii|litx i s bull liillliSi ZZZZZZZZZ i|||i-^i - iiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiii --i|yiiiWi iiiifslt^laquoiiiiiii3jiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiltfcjii i(3yiiiliii iiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiJC iiii-S iifiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMi iiiiiiilii154- bull i i - i i6laquo856i mzMkm iiiiiiiliiii ii|iijji||ii|||i 9lMMi MmiMi zZ^ mm iiiiiiiifi li^iiiiiiiiiraquoliiii 33100 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilMi^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiieiiiii^iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Pi iiiiiiiiiiiiNti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij^i

Chromium 206 526 1 8 18 34 104 16 W 11 (4) 3200 (4) 648b 4455 1296000 -Cobal t 113 295 19 22 36 40 NC NC NC NC NC NC

fMgtimi-^ztm zmisectmi iMiMM wmmi M^iiiiampii iiJiiM 189 iiiiiiiiiisiiiiiilaquo3iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifii iiiiiiiiiiiliiiii^-iiiii isiiiiiiiiiiisiiiii CJiiiiiijiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiStCiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM bullsiiiii iiiiiiili5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiigtireii iiiiiiii-shy bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull iiiiiiliiiiiiWiii bull bull laquo raquo - iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiilifii iiiiiiiiiiii iii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii l i i i i i i i i i i^ i l l l i s i i iiiiii i-iiiiiiiSiiiiiiisiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|fltii- 405000 iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiwii iiiiAiiishymBmmm imampmm WmMM Wimm iiiiillili iiiiiiiiliiiiiii

Lead 43 i t3 21 168 l i 37 30 168 14 (3) 054 p) NC 5670 219 NC

Magnes ium 42400 148000 3950 8990 8630 21100 5040 11200 NC NC NC NC NC NC

iiititlj^iusibiii^j iilllJii^ -M-W^M iiiiiiii^^i^ ii-|7laquo- L5W iiiiiiiiiiiiiilliiifii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiltiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii ii5iiiiiiie iiiiiiiiiiii bullbull bull l t raquo iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNC iiiiiiii isci i i i | | i i i | | i p i i II0M^I iiiiiliiiiiiiiilii WM^MmM ilillilflil i | | | l il |o| | l i i l i P liiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiip8iii bullbull ( U si i l i l i iiiiii- iiii-li|i5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiipiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiii -i- o-iil bull iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiii laquoiii

Nicke l 164 452 64 104 643 (3) 33 (3) 3800 260415 13365 1539000 -Potaaaium 13100 33400 2800 5420 4580 9790 3280 5780 NC NC NC NC NC NC

i|i3laquo|i |s||i ilsectiampim illii|li MmMm iiliil|^i7ii il-lii^|iiraquoiii- (iiltii iliiiiiii^iiiiili^^^ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiii2iwiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiliis lt 6800 ii5iiiiiiiyilaquoJpll i iiiiiiiiiifiiil ^iiilOWi iiiiiii3^lHWraquoi iiiiii--i

|i|||ii Iliii illl|iillSI |illliSl^| illillaquoii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiliiltiii laquo raquo iiiiiiiiiiiii||i||| iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii|i|ltoigttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiliiiiilii iiiiiiiiiiiii bull^bull i l iNc| i-|iiiii -i-iii ii gti5 i iiiiiiiili^^ iiiiiiiiiiii Oiiiiiiii|i bulliiiiiiii Sodium 14100 28900 12500 26raquo00 16320 33200 16300 68000 N c NC NC Nc NC Nc Thal l ium 10 10 58 10 1400 (1) 40 (1) 32 567000 16200 1296

igtPiiiilli MmmmiM liilililil iiliiiiisii iii|ii| bulliiii iiiiiisiiilii iiiiiiiiiiiii|i ii^|i iiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii iiiiiiii ii^iliiiiiiiNiilliiiiiiiji- bulli|iiiiiflaquoSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii|lNe-|i-ii iiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Nc iiiiiii liiNCii iiiiiii iiiiiiiilifiei iiiii iiiiiii iilaquo|||il| mmmmi m m m i M iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisil i iiiisiiiiilllii iiiiliiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiitii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiii iiiiiiliili-|s4ii iiilliiiiiiii ssiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii^^iii-iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliii i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiii 13365 iiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiip^ P b a i e I RI sampling conducted in M a y 1988 Phase II RI samplmg conducted in Apri l 1989

N C = N o cri teria exiata for th is compotmd

N A = N o t Available

(1) Insufficient Data to Develop Cri ter ia Value presented is L O E L - Lowest Observed Effect Level

(2) Value preaented for careinogena ia the 10-S level

(3) Hardness dependent c r i te r ia (25 mgA C A C 0 3 uaed)

(4) Value presented is for Ihe m o r e toxic hexavalent form

(5) Value presented is proposed (more conservat ive)

(6) Effluent Discharge L imi t dilution factor based upon an effluent discbarge of 5 gpm to the Neponse t River during the 7 - d a y low flow lOyr recurrence (2020gpm)

USOS Pleasant Street Oaug ing atation on the Neponset River

(7) Dilut ion factor =[(Sgpm+2020gpm)Sgpm]= 405

(lO)Concentration exceeds effluent discharge limit contaminant must be removed by Groundwate r Treatment Plant before discharge to Ihe Neponset River [ D = D A I L Y M A X A = A V O M O N T H L Y F=FISH]

c and 1-3 for effluent (Uscharge limits for organic and inorganic compounds An acute toxicity

test showed that no toxic effect was observed for the interim treatment discharge

114 Conclusions

Based on the results of the Phase I bench scale treatabUity study the combined unit

operations of fUtration foUowed by carbon adsorption were effective in treating the

contaminated groundwater coUected during the pumping tests for temporary discharge to the

Neponset River A sample of the discharge was coUected during the groundwater treatment

and it was found to contain less than the quantitation limit of 05 xgL of PCB The metals

concentrations were aU determined to be below the discharge criteria A sample was also

coUected and submitted for an acute toxicity determination The resuUs showed that no toxic

effect was observed The bench scale treatability results and the on-line discharge analyses

demonstrate that the filtration and carbon adsorption unit operations were effective temporary

treatment techniques

^ 12 FULL SCALE STUDY

A groundwater treatability study was conducted to evaluate the performance of four different

treatment processes on contaminated groundwater obtained from the Norwood PCB site The

contaminants present in the groundwater were determined during previous studies conducted

in May 1988 and AprU 1989 by EBASCO Chapter 1 of the Final FeasibUity Study

(EBASCO 1989c) contains an overview of the results obtained during these investigations

Based on the resuUs of the May 1988 and AprU 1989 field investigations EPA concluded

that the overburden and bedrock aquifers beneath the site were contaminated with

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and volatUe and semivolatile organic compounds (VOCs

and SVOCs) It was determined that surficial and subsurface soUs dredge pUes of sediments

taken from Meadow Brook sediments in Meadow Brook and sediments in the drainage

system of the buUding operated by Grant Gear were the sources of the contamination In

r

c September 1989 EPA released the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Norwood PCB site In

the ROD EPA directed that groundwater be treated with a system including activated carbon

air stripping with vapor controls and precipitationfiltration iEPA also directed that

treatability studies or pUot studies be conducted to aid in the overaU design of the system

In accordance with the ROD a bench scale treatabUity study was conducted at the ENSECO

Laboratory Facility in Cambridge Massachusetts by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel between

January 14 and February 16 1992 This report presents a description of the work

completed resuUs and conclusions of the study

121 Objectives

The fuU-scale groundwater treatability study was conducted to determine if treatment

consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping and carbon adsorption would effectively

remove the contamination present in the groundwater at the Norwood PCB site to appUcable

standards Information on the percent reduction of organic and inorganic compounds in the

groundwater volume type of residual and byproducts produced by each component were

also investigated A schematic detailing the treatability study and the sampling and analysis

conducted is presented in Figure 1-1

122 Description of Work

The treatability study was performed in accordance with Pre-Design Work Plan 3 and the

QuaUty Assurance Project Plan for the Phase n Bench-Scale TreatabiUty Study (Work

Plan 3)

Groundwater samples were coUected from the Norwood PCB site for use in this

investigation Interim sampling was performed on effluent streams generated from each

bench-scale process for analysis according to Table 1-4 Influent and final effluent samples

generated during the groundwater treatabiUty were coUected and analyzed through the CLP

^

o JAR TESTING SAMPLE ID

o

POLYMER TESTING

RAW GROUNDWATER

VOL 1 SVOL I p PCB f ^ ^ METALS

mdash SST

T

T

T

SS - Choose Polymer T ar)d Dose Estimate pH pf i After Coagu lant

Jar Test 1 PH10 bull

Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

Ume wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

Jar Test 2 pH9

Jar Test 3 pH8

bull

Lime w C oag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

JT1 -1 shy

j r i -2 shy

JT1 -3 shy

JTI-4

j r 2 - 1

JT2-2 shy

JT2-3

j r2-4 bull

JT3-1 shy

JT3-2shy

JT3-3 bull

JT3-4 shy

HLTRATION TESTING

RIter Paper 1 - SS T Time mdash |

RIter Paper 2 - SS T Time-

Rlter Paper 3 - SS T Time -

CtHXise Filter Paper or Particle Retention Size

Sample Well Using Bailer

VOL SVOL PCB CLPMETALS (PPF-1)

Precipitate and Filter Using Optimized Polymer pH Coagulant and Filter

lt

AIR STRIPPING

AJrWater Ratio 1

AirWater Ratio 2

AirWater Ratio3 ~

VOLmdash1

-VOL

-VOLmdash

SAMPLE ID CARBON ADSORPTION (All by CLP)

Carbon mdashVOL SVOL Metals AC-1

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-2

Dose 3 mdash ^ deg shy reg ^ deg ^^reg ^ ^

Carbon

Dose1

Carbon Dose 2

Cartwn

Dose 4

Cartxjn Dose 1

Carbon Dose2~

Carbon Dose 3

Carbon Dose4~

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-4

-VOL C-1

-VOL SVOL Metals C-2

-VOL PCB C-3

bull VOL SVOL Chronic Toxicity C-4

Jar Test 4 pH 10 Dup

bull

- Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

Jr4-1

JT4-2

JT4-3

Carbon Doses

Cartxgtn Dose 6

-VOL SVOL PCB

mdash VOL Metals

C-5

C-6

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals JT4-4

VOL = Volatile Organics SVOL = Semi Volatile Organics

Carbon Dose 7

mdashVOL SVOL C-7

SS = Suspended Solids

NaOH-MNAL JT5-1 T = Turbidity

Jar Test 5 pHIO

NaOH - wPolymer - MN AL

NaOH wPoly wCoag RItered - MN AL

JT5-2

JT5-3

NaOH wPdy wCoag Aerated andRItered - MN AL

JT5-4

^ NaOH wPdy wCoag PermanganateRItered - MN M

JT5-5

J O Special FIGURE 1-1 TREATABILITY STUDY

Optimize pH Decide Ume or NaOH

SAMPUNG AND ANALYSIS SCHEMATIC

Compare Polymer vs Coagulant

(J DF222658HW

c

c

TABLE 1-4 TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Number Bench Scale Process

Groundwater Treatability Study

Initial Groundwater

Preliminary Polymer Testing

Precipitation Supemant

FUtration Effluent

Metals Sludge Precipitated and FUtered Effluent with Groundwater CoUected with BaUer

Air Stripping Effluent

Air Stripped Carbon Adsorption Effluent

Non Air Stripped Carbon Effluent

Sludge Sample

Rock Washing Study

Initial Rocks Initial Gravel from roof Stone from Cap Washed Rocks Washed Stones

Samples

1

1 1

16 16 16

3 3

1 2 2 2

3

4 4 2 2

7 4 2 2 1 1

3 5 6 3 1

Analysis

VolatUes SemivolatUes PCB Metals Suspended SoUds pH Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity Metals VolatUe Organics

Suspended SoUds TuAidity

PCB VolatUe Organics PCB SemivolatUe Organics

VolatUe Organics

SemivolatUe Organics VolatUe Organics Metals PCB

VolatUe Organics SemivolatUe Organics Metals PCB Chronic Toxicity PCBs Metals

PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB

Laboratory

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

c

c

c

system for volatUes semivolatUes PCBs and metals AU interim samples were analyzed at

ENSECO in Cambridge Massachusetts AU data was vaUdated by MampE according to the

QAPP

1221 Groundwater Sample CoUection Groundwater for this study was coUected from

weUs MW-IA and ME-8 as shown on Figure 1-2 iMW-lA was chosen as a sampling

location because it was determined to be one of the most contaminated weUs on-site based

on previous investigations During the course of the treatabiUty study a decision was made

to obtain samples from ME-8 because results of the most recent sampling effort conducted by

ICF indicated that groundwater from this weU contained approximately 200 xgL vinyl

chloride whereas groundwater from MW-IA no longer contained any quantifiable amount

Removal of vinyl chloride by aeration needed to be demonstrated during this investigation

because vinyl chloride is not effectively removed by carbon adsorption

Groundwater samples were obtained on four separate occasions during the study as shown in

Table 1-5 On each occasion the groundwater was coUected in accordance with the Field

Sampling Plan Three weU volumes of water were purged from the weU using a centrifiigal

pump before any samples were coUected The pH temperature and conductivity of the

purge water was measured after each weU volume untU the measured values differed by less

than 10 for three consecutive samples to ensure the sample drawn was representative of the

water in the aquifer Samples for the metals precipitation and filtration study were coUected

using a centrifugal pump Samples for the air stripping and carbon adsorption study were

coUected with a teflon baUer to minimize aeration and possible loss of volatUes during

sample coUection

The samples were coUected in one gallon amber glass bottles and stored at 4degC Each

sample bottle wasfiUed to exclude a headspace in the bottle

e 10

200 200

SCALE IN FEET

D CAP ROCK SAMPLE LOCATION

bull WELLS

nOURE 1-2 GROUNDWATER AND TRENCH AND CAP

ROCK SAMPLING LOCATIONS

11

E T C A L F a EDDY

c TABLE 1-5 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING SUMMARY

Mode of Date WeU Amount Sampled pH Temp degC Conductivity SampUng

11392 MW-IA 10 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm pump

12792 MW-IA 16 gaUons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20392 MW-IA 16 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20592 ME-8 2 gallons 64 8deg 230 umhocm baUer

1222 Precipitation Testing

General Chemical precipitation for the removal of metals was evaluated at three pH values

and three polymer dosages to determine the effectiveness of the treatment A preliminary

evaluation of different coagulants and polymers was conducted at three pH values by

r Metcalf amp Eddy personnel and a leading polymer vendor to determine which chemicals could

potentiaUy be used to precipitate groundwater Based on the results from the preliminary

evaluation jar tests were conducted by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel to aid in the determination

of the chemical dosages required to optimize the effectiveness of precipitation

Polymer and Coagulent Testing Polymer testing was performed by Metcalf amp Eddy and a

leading polymer vendor at the ENSECO laboratory faciUty in Cambridge Massachusetts

The effectiveness of anionic cationic and nonioiuc polymer was evaluated at three pH

values The best polymer was determined to be Drewfloc 2270 a low charge anionic high

molecular weight polymer This polymer was used in jar tests 1 through 5 The best

coagulent was determined to be Charge Pack 12 (CP-12) a higher charge cationic low

molecular weight coagulent The CP-12 coagulent was used in jar tests 1 through 5

described under jar testing

12 c

InitiaUy the effects of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was investigated Tests c were conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 with sodium hydroxide which had the best

settling characteristics based on visual observation and turbidity measurement Each polymer

was then tested at pH = 100 to evaluate Us effectiveness under optimum pH conditions

A formula of polymer and coagulant addition was developed based on visual observations

suspended soUds and turbidity analyses performed on each sample generated during the

investigation The anionic polymer effectively flocculated the existing smaU suspended

particles and the addkion of cationic coagulant removed iron and color when the pH was

raised to 100

Jar Testing Five jar tests were performed using the polymer and coagulants determined to

be effective during preliminary testing Jar tests 1 and 4 were conducted as dupUcates at

ph 10 Jar test 2 was conducted at pH 9 jar test 3 was conducted at pH 8 and jar test 5 was

conducted at pH 10 On each occasion prior to beginning the jar test the raw groundwater

was brought tol5deg-17degCina warm water bath The temperature was held constant to c eliminate the effects of temperature on reaction rates and solubUity

The foUowing is a description of activities conducted during the jar tests fti through 4 See

Figure 1-1 for details Four samples were evaluated during each jar test For each jar test

four 15 Uter beakers were fiUed with 1 Uter of raw groundwater The beakers were placed

on the stirrer platform and the paddles were lowered into the sample The jar stirrer was

operated at 80 revolutions per minute (rpm) The pH was then adjusted to the desired value

(pH = 10 9 8 10 for Tests 1 2 3 4) with a lime slurry in two samples and with a

sodium hydroxide solution (25) in the remaining two samples Lime was added to

investigate its effects on the precipitate and to evaluate its effectiveness in pH adjustment

The cationic coagulant was then added to each sample untU the concentration in solution was

30 mgL The solution was stirred at 80 rpm for 2 minutes to ensure complete mixing The

polymer was then added to one sample pH adjusted with sodium hydroxide and one sample

pH adjusted with lime Mixing continued for two minutes Next the solution was stirred

13 c

slowly orflocculated for five minutes at 20 rpm FinaUy the solutions were aUowed to

c settle for 10 minutes Visual observations were recorded and samples were submitted for

suspended soUds turbidity and metals analyses

Jar test 5 was performed to assess the removal of manganese and aluminum by preaeration

and permanganate additions (see Figure 1-1) Because no significant benefit was observed in

the previous tests when lime was used instead of sodium hydroxide sodium hydroxide was

used to adjust the pH in aU four samples to a pH of 100 in jar test 5 Only sodium

hydroxide was added to the groundwater in the first jar to determine the removal of

manganese and aluminum attributable to the formation of an insoluble salt at high pH

Sodium hydroxide and polymer were added to the second jar to evaluate the effectiveness of

the polymer Sodium hydroxide polymer and coagulant were added to sample 4 The

supemate from sample 4 was then fUtered This was performed to determine if the required

removal efficiencies could be achieved by chemical precipitation and filtration

Permanganate was added to sample 3 in addition to sodium hydroxide coagulant and

polymer to determine if the manganese and aluminum present could be chemicaUy oxidized c to a less soluble state which would enhance the efficiency of fUtration The supemate was

then siphoned off using clean tygon tubing and a syringe into the sample containers

Samples were submitted for metals suspended soUds and turbidity as illustrated on

Figure 1-1

1223 Filtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was perfonned to determine the

optimum pore size of filter media that could effectively remove the suspended soUds in the

precipitated groundwater The determination of the removal efficiency for each filter was

based on the concentration of suspended soUds and turbidity of the filtered water The time

required to filter the groundwater was also evaluated

Prior to filtration the metals in the groundwater were precipitated and coagulent and polymer

were added using the optimum conditions developed during the precipitation study The

optimum conditions consisted of pH adjustment to 10 with sodium hydroxide addition of

14 c

coagulent CP-12 to a concentration of one percent and addition of Drewfloc 2270 polymer to

c a concentration of 10 mgl Three grades (10 xm 5 xm and 1 xm pore sizes) of filter

paper were used with a Buchner ftmnel to filter aUquots of the precipitated groundwater

Samples of the filtered water were submitted to ENSECO for suspended soUds and turbidity

analysis

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge was coUected during the treatability study The

sludge sample was submitted to the CLP system for PCB and metals analysis so that a

characterization of the sludge could be made and disposal options could be evaluated

1224 Air Stripping Testing Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at three

different air to water ratios to determine the most effective stripping ratio To ensure that

worst case volatUe organic compound concentrations were present in the samples for this

study some modifications were made in how the sample was coUected and treated First

the groundwater was coUected with a baUer to prevent the loss of volatUes AdditionaUy the

water was fUtered under positive pressure foUowing the precipitation step to minimize the c loss of volatUes that would result if the water was filtered using a vacuum pump

An aquarium pump tygon tubing and aeration stone with a glass-fiber fUter cartridge was

used to aerate 1-Uter aUquots of precipitated and filtered groundwater The aeration flow

rate was caUbrated by filling a graduated cylinder with air that had been filled with tap water

and inverted in a water bath The air was diffused at 375 missec into 1-Uter aUquots of

groundwater and the time measured as iUustrated in Table 1-6 The aerated groundwater was

submitted to ENSECO for volatUe organics analysis

1225 Carbon Adsorption Testing The effectiveness of activated carbon for the removal

of organic compounds in the groundwater at the site was evaluated The carbon used was

the powdered activated 325 mesh carbon suppUed by Calgon Corporation The groundwater

samples used for this investigation were obtained and filtered as described in the air stripping

15 c

c

c

TABLE 1-6 AERATION TEST OPERATIONS

Air to Water Ratio Volume Volume of by Volume of Water Air Reqd Min of Aeration

251 1000 ml 25000 ml 111 501 1000 ml 50000 ml 222 751 1000 ml 75000 ml 333

section of this report to minimize the loss of volatUes A total of twelve samples were mn

during this investigation The necessity of air stripping was investigated by comparing the

resuUs from four samples that were air stripped to seven samples that were treated identicaUy

with the exception of air stripping AU samples for the air stripping comparison went

through the precipitation filtration and carbon adsorption processes AdditionaUy one

sample was prepared with no carbon added to serve as an untreated sample The samples are

summarized in Table 1-7 Each groundwater sample was prepared and mixed with a

predetermined dose of Calgon powdered 325 mesh activated carbon and placed m an open

Erlenmyer flask on a shaker table for a two-hour time period at 180 rpm A rotary shaker

table capable of accommodating twelve (12)-1000 ml Erlenmyer flasks was used Effluent

was fUtered with a barrel filter using a glass-fiber pre-fUter and a Whatman 45 micron

membrane The effluent clear and odorless in aU cases was added to sample containers

preserved and packed for shipment to CLP laboratories Since the shaker table could

accommodate 12 flasks a total of approximately 4 gaUons of effluent was generated during

each mn Several mns were performed to generate adequate quantities of sample for

analysis accordmg to Table 1-7 Groundwater was simUarly prepared for submittal to

Aquatec Lab in Burlington Vermont for chronic toxicity testing Three (3) shipments of

approximately 2 gaUons each were made

r 16

C) o o TABLE 1-7 CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation Filtration Aeration amp Carbon

AC-1 05 V SV MET 3400 3 1067 054 AC-2 20 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 22 AC-3 50 V SV MET 3400 3 1133 57 AC-4 100 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 110 AC-5 Trip Blank 0 V

Precipitation Filtration amp Carbon

C-0 0 V 500 1 500 0

C-1 05 V SV MET 3200 3 1067 053

c-2 10 V PCB 2200 2 1100 11

C-3 20 V SV CT 29000 24 1250 25

C-4 50 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 55

C-17 70 V MET 1200 1 1200 70

C-18 100 V SV 2200 2 1100 110

C-13 Treatability Blank 0 V PCB 2200 0 0 0

C-20 Trip Blank 0 V 0

C-10 Duplicate of C-1 05 SV 2000 2 1000 05

C-1 05 (MSMSD) 500 1 500 025

C-11 Duplicate of C-1 05 MET 1000 1 1000 05

C-20 Duplicate of C-2 10 V PCB (MSMSD)

4400 4 1100 11

C-16 Duplicate of C-4 50 PCB 2000 2 1000 50

C-6 0 PCB 2000 2 1000 0

17

o o n TABLE 1-7 (Continued) CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation amp Filtration

PPF-1 V SV MET PCB 2000 2 1000 0

Sludge

Sludge-1 0 MET PCB 0

V = VolatUe organics SV = Semivolatile organics MET = Metals PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls CT = Chronic toxicity MSMSD = Matrix spikematrix spike dup D = DupUcate TB = Trip blank PPF = Precipitated and pressure filtered

(to minimize volatUes loss as opposed to vacuum filtration)

18

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

c and 1-3 for effluent (Uscharge limits for organic and inorganic compounds An acute toxicity

test showed that no toxic effect was observed for the interim treatment discharge

114 Conclusions

Based on the results of the Phase I bench scale treatabUity study the combined unit

operations of fUtration foUowed by carbon adsorption were effective in treating the

contaminated groundwater coUected during the pumping tests for temporary discharge to the

Neponset River A sample of the discharge was coUected during the groundwater treatment

and it was found to contain less than the quantitation limit of 05 xgL of PCB The metals

concentrations were aU determined to be below the discharge criteria A sample was also

coUected and submitted for an acute toxicity determination The resuUs showed that no toxic

effect was observed The bench scale treatability results and the on-line discharge analyses

demonstrate that the filtration and carbon adsorption unit operations were effective temporary

treatment techniques

^ 12 FULL SCALE STUDY

A groundwater treatability study was conducted to evaluate the performance of four different

treatment processes on contaminated groundwater obtained from the Norwood PCB site The

contaminants present in the groundwater were determined during previous studies conducted

in May 1988 and AprU 1989 by EBASCO Chapter 1 of the Final FeasibUity Study

(EBASCO 1989c) contains an overview of the results obtained during these investigations

Based on the resuUs of the May 1988 and AprU 1989 field investigations EPA concluded

that the overburden and bedrock aquifers beneath the site were contaminated with

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and volatUe and semivolatile organic compounds (VOCs

and SVOCs) It was determined that surficial and subsurface soUs dredge pUes of sediments

taken from Meadow Brook sediments in Meadow Brook and sediments in the drainage

system of the buUding operated by Grant Gear were the sources of the contamination In

r

c September 1989 EPA released the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Norwood PCB site In

the ROD EPA directed that groundwater be treated with a system including activated carbon

air stripping with vapor controls and precipitationfiltration iEPA also directed that

treatability studies or pUot studies be conducted to aid in the overaU design of the system

In accordance with the ROD a bench scale treatabUity study was conducted at the ENSECO

Laboratory Facility in Cambridge Massachusetts by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel between

January 14 and February 16 1992 This report presents a description of the work

completed resuUs and conclusions of the study

121 Objectives

The fuU-scale groundwater treatability study was conducted to determine if treatment

consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping and carbon adsorption would effectively

remove the contamination present in the groundwater at the Norwood PCB site to appUcable

standards Information on the percent reduction of organic and inorganic compounds in the

groundwater volume type of residual and byproducts produced by each component were

also investigated A schematic detailing the treatability study and the sampling and analysis

conducted is presented in Figure 1-1

122 Description of Work

The treatability study was performed in accordance with Pre-Design Work Plan 3 and the

QuaUty Assurance Project Plan for the Phase n Bench-Scale TreatabiUty Study (Work

Plan 3)

Groundwater samples were coUected from the Norwood PCB site for use in this

investigation Interim sampling was performed on effluent streams generated from each

bench-scale process for analysis according to Table 1-4 Influent and final effluent samples

generated during the groundwater treatabiUty were coUected and analyzed through the CLP

^

o JAR TESTING SAMPLE ID

o

POLYMER TESTING

RAW GROUNDWATER

VOL 1 SVOL I p PCB f ^ ^ METALS

mdash SST

T

T

T

SS - Choose Polymer T ar)d Dose Estimate pH pf i After Coagu lant

Jar Test 1 PH10 bull

Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

Ume wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

Jar Test 2 pH9

Jar Test 3 pH8

bull

Lime w C oag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

JT1 -1 shy

j r i -2 shy

JT1 -3 shy

JTI-4

j r 2 - 1

JT2-2 shy

JT2-3

j r2-4 bull

JT3-1 shy

JT3-2shy

JT3-3 bull

JT3-4 shy

HLTRATION TESTING

RIter Paper 1 - SS T Time mdash |

RIter Paper 2 - SS T Time-

Rlter Paper 3 - SS T Time -

CtHXise Filter Paper or Particle Retention Size

Sample Well Using Bailer

VOL SVOL PCB CLPMETALS (PPF-1)

Precipitate and Filter Using Optimized Polymer pH Coagulant and Filter

lt

AIR STRIPPING

AJrWater Ratio 1

AirWater Ratio 2

AirWater Ratio3 ~

VOLmdash1

-VOL

-VOLmdash

SAMPLE ID CARBON ADSORPTION (All by CLP)

Carbon mdashVOL SVOL Metals AC-1

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-2

Dose 3 mdash ^ deg shy reg ^ deg ^^reg ^ ^

Carbon

Dose1

Carbon Dose 2

Cartwn

Dose 4

Cartxjn Dose 1

Carbon Dose2~

Carbon Dose 3

Carbon Dose4~

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-4

-VOL C-1

-VOL SVOL Metals C-2

-VOL PCB C-3

bull VOL SVOL Chronic Toxicity C-4

Jar Test 4 pH 10 Dup

bull

- Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

Jr4-1

JT4-2

JT4-3

Carbon Doses

Cartxgtn Dose 6

-VOL SVOL PCB

mdash VOL Metals

C-5

C-6

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals JT4-4

VOL = Volatile Organics SVOL = Semi Volatile Organics

Carbon Dose 7

mdashVOL SVOL C-7

SS = Suspended Solids

NaOH-MNAL JT5-1 T = Turbidity

Jar Test 5 pHIO

NaOH - wPolymer - MN AL

NaOH wPoly wCoag RItered - MN AL

JT5-2

JT5-3

NaOH wPdy wCoag Aerated andRItered - MN AL

JT5-4

^ NaOH wPdy wCoag PermanganateRItered - MN M

JT5-5

J O Special FIGURE 1-1 TREATABILITY STUDY

Optimize pH Decide Ume or NaOH

SAMPUNG AND ANALYSIS SCHEMATIC

Compare Polymer vs Coagulant

(J DF222658HW

c

c

TABLE 1-4 TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Number Bench Scale Process

Groundwater Treatability Study

Initial Groundwater

Preliminary Polymer Testing

Precipitation Supemant

FUtration Effluent

Metals Sludge Precipitated and FUtered Effluent with Groundwater CoUected with BaUer

Air Stripping Effluent

Air Stripped Carbon Adsorption Effluent

Non Air Stripped Carbon Effluent

Sludge Sample

Rock Washing Study

Initial Rocks Initial Gravel from roof Stone from Cap Washed Rocks Washed Stones

Samples

1

1 1

16 16 16

3 3

1 2 2 2

3

4 4 2 2

7 4 2 2 1 1

3 5 6 3 1

Analysis

VolatUes SemivolatUes PCB Metals Suspended SoUds pH Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity Metals VolatUe Organics

Suspended SoUds TuAidity

PCB VolatUe Organics PCB SemivolatUe Organics

VolatUe Organics

SemivolatUe Organics VolatUe Organics Metals PCB

VolatUe Organics SemivolatUe Organics Metals PCB Chronic Toxicity PCBs Metals

PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB

Laboratory

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

c

c

c

system for volatUes semivolatUes PCBs and metals AU interim samples were analyzed at

ENSECO in Cambridge Massachusetts AU data was vaUdated by MampE according to the

QAPP

1221 Groundwater Sample CoUection Groundwater for this study was coUected from

weUs MW-IA and ME-8 as shown on Figure 1-2 iMW-lA was chosen as a sampling

location because it was determined to be one of the most contaminated weUs on-site based

on previous investigations During the course of the treatabiUty study a decision was made

to obtain samples from ME-8 because results of the most recent sampling effort conducted by

ICF indicated that groundwater from this weU contained approximately 200 xgL vinyl

chloride whereas groundwater from MW-IA no longer contained any quantifiable amount

Removal of vinyl chloride by aeration needed to be demonstrated during this investigation

because vinyl chloride is not effectively removed by carbon adsorption

Groundwater samples were obtained on four separate occasions during the study as shown in

Table 1-5 On each occasion the groundwater was coUected in accordance with the Field

Sampling Plan Three weU volumes of water were purged from the weU using a centrifiigal

pump before any samples were coUected The pH temperature and conductivity of the

purge water was measured after each weU volume untU the measured values differed by less

than 10 for three consecutive samples to ensure the sample drawn was representative of the

water in the aquifer Samples for the metals precipitation and filtration study were coUected

using a centrifugal pump Samples for the air stripping and carbon adsorption study were

coUected with a teflon baUer to minimize aeration and possible loss of volatUes during

sample coUection

The samples were coUected in one gallon amber glass bottles and stored at 4degC Each

sample bottle wasfiUed to exclude a headspace in the bottle

e 10

200 200

SCALE IN FEET

D CAP ROCK SAMPLE LOCATION

bull WELLS

nOURE 1-2 GROUNDWATER AND TRENCH AND CAP

ROCK SAMPLING LOCATIONS

11

E T C A L F a EDDY

c TABLE 1-5 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING SUMMARY

Mode of Date WeU Amount Sampled pH Temp degC Conductivity SampUng

11392 MW-IA 10 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm pump

12792 MW-IA 16 gaUons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20392 MW-IA 16 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20592 ME-8 2 gallons 64 8deg 230 umhocm baUer

1222 Precipitation Testing

General Chemical precipitation for the removal of metals was evaluated at three pH values

and three polymer dosages to determine the effectiveness of the treatment A preliminary

evaluation of different coagulants and polymers was conducted at three pH values by

r Metcalf amp Eddy personnel and a leading polymer vendor to determine which chemicals could

potentiaUy be used to precipitate groundwater Based on the results from the preliminary

evaluation jar tests were conducted by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel to aid in the determination

of the chemical dosages required to optimize the effectiveness of precipitation

Polymer and Coagulent Testing Polymer testing was performed by Metcalf amp Eddy and a

leading polymer vendor at the ENSECO laboratory faciUty in Cambridge Massachusetts

The effectiveness of anionic cationic and nonioiuc polymer was evaluated at three pH

values The best polymer was determined to be Drewfloc 2270 a low charge anionic high

molecular weight polymer This polymer was used in jar tests 1 through 5 The best

coagulent was determined to be Charge Pack 12 (CP-12) a higher charge cationic low

molecular weight coagulent The CP-12 coagulent was used in jar tests 1 through 5

described under jar testing

12 c

InitiaUy the effects of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was investigated Tests c were conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 with sodium hydroxide which had the best

settling characteristics based on visual observation and turbidity measurement Each polymer

was then tested at pH = 100 to evaluate Us effectiveness under optimum pH conditions

A formula of polymer and coagulant addition was developed based on visual observations

suspended soUds and turbidity analyses performed on each sample generated during the

investigation The anionic polymer effectively flocculated the existing smaU suspended

particles and the addkion of cationic coagulant removed iron and color when the pH was

raised to 100

Jar Testing Five jar tests were performed using the polymer and coagulants determined to

be effective during preliminary testing Jar tests 1 and 4 were conducted as dupUcates at

ph 10 Jar test 2 was conducted at pH 9 jar test 3 was conducted at pH 8 and jar test 5 was

conducted at pH 10 On each occasion prior to beginning the jar test the raw groundwater

was brought tol5deg-17degCina warm water bath The temperature was held constant to c eliminate the effects of temperature on reaction rates and solubUity

The foUowing is a description of activities conducted during the jar tests fti through 4 See

Figure 1-1 for details Four samples were evaluated during each jar test For each jar test

four 15 Uter beakers were fiUed with 1 Uter of raw groundwater The beakers were placed

on the stirrer platform and the paddles were lowered into the sample The jar stirrer was

operated at 80 revolutions per minute (rpm) The pH was then adjusted to the desired value

(pH = 10 9 8 10 for Tests 1 2 3 4) with a lime slurry in two samples and with a

sodium hydroxide solution (25) in the remaining two samples Lime was added to

investigate its effects on the precipitate and to evaluate its effectiveness in pH adjustment

The cationic coagulant was then added to each sample untU the concentration in solution was

30 mgL The solution was stirred at 80 rpm for 2 minutes to ensure complete mixing The

polymer was then added to one sample pH adjusted with sodium hydroxide and one sample

pH adjusted with lime Mixing continued for two minutes Next the solution was stirred

13 c

slowly orflocculated for five minutes at 20 rpm FinaUy the solutions were aUowed to

c settle for 10 minutes Visual observations were recorded and samples were submitted for

suspended soUds turbidity and metals analyses

Jar test 5 was performed to assess the removal of manganese and aluminum by preaeration

and permanganate additions (see Figure 1-1) Because no significant benefit was observed in

the previous tests when lime was used instead of sodium hydroxide sodium hydroxide was

used to adjust the pH in aU four samples to a pH of 100 in jar test 5 Only sodium

hydroxide was added to the groundwater in the first jar to determine the removal of

manganese and aluminum attributable to the formation of an insoluble salt at high pH

Sodium hydroxide and polymer were added to the second jar to evaluate the effectiveness of

the polymer Sodium hydroxide polymer and coagulant were added to sample 4 The

supemate from sample 4 was then fUtered This was performed to determine if the required

removal efficiencies could be achieved by chemical precipitation and filtration

Permanganate was added to sample 3 in addition to sodium hydroxide coagulant and

polymer to determine if the manganese and aluminum present could be chemicaUy oxidized c to a less soluble state which would enhance the efficiency of fUtration The supemate was

then siphoned off using clean tygon tubing and a syringe into the sample containers

Samples were submitted for metals suspended soUds and turbidity as illustrated on

Figure 1-1

1223 Filtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was perfonned to determine the

optimum pore size of filter media that could effectively remove the suspended soUds in the

precipitated groundwater The determination of the removal efficiency for each filter was

based on the concentration of suspended soUds and turbidity of the filtered water The time

required to filter the groundwater was also evaluated

Prior to filtration the metals in the groundwater were precipitated and coagulent and polymer

were added using the optimum conditions developed during the precipitation study The

optimum conditions consisted of pH adjustment to 10 with sodium hydroxide addition of

14 c

coagulent CP-12 to a concentration of one percent and addition of Drewfloc 2270 polymer to

c a concentration of 10 mgl Three grades (10 xm 5 xm and 1 xm pore sizes) of filter

paper were used with a Buchner ftmnel to filter aUquots of the precipitated groundwater

Samples of the filtered water were submitted to ENSECO for suspended soUds and turbidity

analysis

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge was coUected during the treatability study The

sludge sample was submitted to the CLP system for PCB and metals analysis so that a

characterization of the sludge could be made and disposal options could be evaluated

1224 Air Stripping Testing Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at three

different air to water ratios to determine the most effective stripping ratio To ensure that

worst case volatUe organic compound concentrations were present in the samples for this

study some modifications were made in how the sample was coUected and treated First

the groundwater was coUected with a baUer to prevent the loss of volatUes AdditionaUy the

water was fUtered under positive pressure foUowing the precipitation step to minimize the c loss of volatUes that would result if the water was filtered using a vacuum pump

An aquarium pump tygon tubing and aeration stone with a glass-fiber fUter cartridge was

used to aerate 1-Uter aUquots of precipitated and filtered groundwater The aeration flow

rate was caUbrated by filling a graduated cylinder with air that had been filled with tap water

and inverted in a water bath The air was diffused at 375 missec into 1-Uter aUquots of

groundwater and the time measured as iUustrated in Table 1-6 The aerated groundwater was

submitted to ENSECO for volatUe organics analysis

1225 Carbon Adsorption Testing The effectiveness of activated carbon for the removal

of organic compounds in the groundwater at the site was evaluated The carbon used was

the powdered activated 325 mesh carbon suppUed by Calgon Corporation The groundwater

samples used for this investigation were obtained and filtered as described in the air stripping

15 c

c

c

TABLE 1-6 AERATION TEST OPERATIONS

Air to Water Ratio Volume Volume of by Volume of Water Air Reqd Min of Aeration

251 1000 ml 25000 ml 111 501 1000 ml 50000 ml 222 751 1000 ml 75000 ml 333

section of this report to minimize the loss of volatUes A total of twelve samples were mn

during this investigation The necessity of air stripping was investigated by comparing the

resuUs from four samples that were air stripped to seven samples that were treated identicaUy

with the exception of air stripping AU samples for the air stripping comparison went

through the precipitation filtration and carbon adsorption processes AdditionaUy one

sample was prepared with no carbon added to serve as an untreated sample The samples are

summarized in Table 1-7 Each groundwater sample was prepared and mixed with a

predetermined dose of Calgon powdered 325 mesh activated carbon and placed m an open

Erlenmyer flask on a shaker table for a two-hour time period at 180 rpm A rotary shaker

table capable of accommodating twelve (12)-1000 ml Erlenmyer flasks was used Effluent

was fUtered with a barrel filter using a glass-fiber pre-fUter and a Whatman 45 micron

membrane The effluent clear and odorless in aU cases was added to sample containers

preserved and packed for shipment to CLP laboratories Since the shaker table could

accommodate 12 flasks a total of approximately 4 gaUons of effluent was generated during

each mn Several mns were performed to generate adequate quantities of sample for

analysis accordmg to Table 1-7 Groundwater was simUarly prepared for submittal to

Aquatec Lab in Burlington Vermont for chronic toxicity testing Three (3) shipments of

approximately 2 gaUons each were made

r 16

C) o o TABLE 1-7 CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation Filtration Aeration amp Carbon

AC-1 05 V SV MET 3400 3 1067 054 AC-2 20 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 22 AC-3 50 V SV MET 3400 3 1133 57 AC-4 100 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 110 AC-5 Trip Blank 0 V

Precipitation Filtration amp Carbon

C-0 0 V 500 1 500 0

C-1 05 V SV MET 3200 3 1067 053

c-2 10 V PCB 2200 2 1100 11

C-3 20 V SV CT 29000 24 1250 25

C-4 50 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 55

C-17 70 V MET 1200 1 1200 70

C-18 100 V SV 2200 2 1100 110

C-13 Treatability Blank 0 V PCB 2200 0 0 0

C-20 Trip Blank 0 V 0

C-10 Duplicate of C-1 05 SV 2000 2 1000 05

C-1 05 (MSMSD) 500 1 500 025

C-11 Duplicate of C-1 05 MET 1000 1 1000 05

C-20 Duplicate of C-2 10 V PCB (MSMSD)

4400 4 1100 11

C-16 Duplicate of C-4 50 PCB 2000 2 1000 50

C-6 0 PCB 2000 2 1000 0

17

o o n TABLE 1-7 (Continued) CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation amp Filtration

PPF-1 V SV MET PCB 2000 2 1000 0

Sludge

Sludge-1 0 MET PCB 0

V = VolatUe organics SV = Semivolatile organics MET = Metals PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls CT = Chronic toxicity MSMSD = Matrix spikematrix spike dup D = DupUcate TB = Trip blank PPF = Precipitated and pressure filtered

(to minimize volatUes loss as opposed to vacuum filtration)

18

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

c September 1989 EPA released the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Norwood PCB site In

the ROD EPA directed that groundwater be treated with a system including activated carbon

air stripping with vapor controls and precipitationfiltration iEPA also directed that

treatability studies or pUot studies be conducted to aid in the overaU design of the system

In accordance with the ROD a bench scale treatabUity study was conducted at the ENSECO

Laboratory Facility in Cambridge Massachusetts by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel between

January 14 and February 16 1992 This report presents a description of the work

completed resuUs and conclusions of the study

121 Objectives

The fuU-scale groundwater treatability study was conducted to determine if treatment

consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping and carbon adsorption would effectively

remove the contamination present in the groundwater at the Norwood PCB site to appUcable

standards Information on the percent reduction of organic and inorganic compounds in the

groundwater volume type of residual and byproducts produced by each component were

also investigated A schematic detailing the treatability study and the sampling and analysis

conducted is presented in Figure 1-1

122 Description of Work

The treatability study was performed in accordance with Pre-Design Work Plan 3 and the

QuaUty Assurance Project Plan for the Phase n Bench-Scale TreatabiUty Study (Work

Plan 3)

Groundwater samples were coUected from the Norwood PCB site for use in this

investigation Interim sampling was performed on effluent streams generated from each

bench-scale process for analysis according to Table 1-4 Influent and final effluent samples

generated during the groundwater treatabiUty were coUected and analyzed through the CLP

^

o JAR TESTING SAMPLE ID

o

POLYMER TESTING

RAW GROUNDWATER

VOL 1 SVOL I p PCB f ^ ^ METALS

mdash SST

T

T

T

SS - Choose Polymer T ar)d Dose Estimate pH pf i After Coagu lant

Jar Test 1 PH10 bull

Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

Ume wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

Jar Test 2 pH9

Jar Test 3 pH8

bull

Lime w C oag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

JT1 -1 shy

j r i -2 shy

JT1 -3 shy

JTI-4

j r 2 - 1

JT2-2 shy

JT2-3

j r2-4 bull

JT3-1 shy

JT3-2shy

JT3-3 bull

JT3-4 shy

HLTRATION TESTING

RIter Paper 1 - SS T Time mdash |

RIter Paper 2 - SS T Time-

Rlter Paper 3 - SS T Time -

CtHXise Filter Paper or Particle Retention Size

Sample Well Using Bailer

VOL SVOL PCB CLPMETALS (PPF-1)

Precipitate and Filter Using Optimized Polymer pH Coagulant and Filter

lt

AIR STRIPPING

AJrWater Ratio 1

AirWater Ratio 2

AirWater Ratio3 ~

VOLmdash1

-VOL

-VOLmdash

SAMPLE ID CARBON ADSORPTION (All by CLP)

Carbon mdashVOL SVOL Metals AC-1

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-2

Dose 3 mdash ^ deg shy reg ^ deg ^^reg ^ ^

Carbon

Dose1

Carbon Dose 2

Cartwn

Dose 4

Cartxjn Dose 1

Carbon Dose2~

Carbon Dose 3

Carbon Dose4~

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-4

-VOL C-1

-VOL SVOL Metals C-2

-VOL PCB C-3

bull VOL SVOL Chronic Toxicity C-4

Jar Test 4 pH 10 Dup

bull

- Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

Jr4-1

JT4-2

JT4-3

Carbon Doses

Cartxgtn Dose 6

-VOL SVOL PCB

mdash VOL Metals

C-5

C-6

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals JT4-4

VOL = Volatile Organics SVOL = Semi Volatile Organics

Carbon Dose 7

mdashVOL SVOL C-7

SS = Suspended Solids

NaOH-MNAL JT5-1 T = Turbidity

Jar Test 5 pHIO

NaOH - wPolymer - MN AL

NaOH wPoly wCoag RItered - MN AL

JT5-2

JT5-3

NaOH wPdy wCoag Aerated andRItered - MN AL

JT5-4

^ NaOH wPdy wCoag PermanganateRItered - MN M

JT5-5

J O Special FIGURE 1-1 TREATABILITY STUDY

Optimize pH Decide Ume or NaOH

SAMPUNG AND ANALYSIS SCHEMATIC

Compare Polymer vs Coagulant

(J DF222658HW

c

c

TABLE 1-4 TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Number Bench Scale Process

Groundwater Treatability Study

Initial Groundwater

Preliminary Polymer Testing

Precipitation Supemant

FUtration Effluent

Metals Sludge Precipitated and FUtered Effluent with Groundwater CoUected with BaUer

Air Stripping Effluent

Air Stripped Carbon Adsorption Effluent

Non Air Stripped Carbon Effluent

Sludge Sample

Rock Washing Study

Initial Rocks Initial Gravel from roof Stone from Cap Washed Rocks Washed Stones

Samples

1

1 1

16 16 16

3 3

1 2 2 2

3

4 4 2 2

7 4 2 2 1 1

3 5 6 3 1

Analysis

VolatUes SemivolatUes PCB Metals Suspended SoUds pH Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity Metals VolatUe Organics

Suspended SoUds TuAidity

PCB VolatUe Organics PCB SemivolatUe Organics

VolatUe Organics

SemivolatUe Organics VolatUe Organics Metals PCB

VolatUe Organics SemivolatUe Organics Metals PCB Chronic Toxicity PCBs Metals

PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB

Laboratory

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

c

c

c

system for volatUes semivolatUes PCBs and metals AU interim samples were analyzed at

ENSECO in Cambridge Massachusetts AU data was vaUdated by MampE according to the

QAPP

1221 Groundwater Sample CoUection Groundwater for this study was coUected from

weUs MW-IA and ME-8 as shown on Figure 1-2 iMW-lA was chosen as a sampling

location because it was determined to be one of the most contaminated weUs on-site based

on previous investigations During the course of the treatabiUty study a decision was made

to obtain samples from ME-8 because results of the most recent sampling effort conducted by

ICF indicated that groundwater from this weU contained approximately 200 xgL vinyl

chloride whereas groundwater from MW-IA no longer contained any quantifiable amount

Removal of vinyl chloride by aeration needed to be demonstrated during this investigation

because vinyl chloride is not effectively removed by carbon adsorption

Groundwater samples were obtained on four separate occasions during the study as shown in

Table 1-5 On each occasion the groundwater was coUected in accordance with the Field

Sampling Plan Three weU volumes of water were purged from the weU using a centrifiigal

pump before any samples were coUected The pH temperature and conductivity of the

purge water was measured after each weU volume untU the measured values differed by less

than 10 for three consecutive samples to ensure the sample drawn was representative of the

water in the aquifer Samples for the metals precipitation and filtration study were coUected

using a centrifugal pump Samples for the air stripping and carbon adsorption study were

coUected with a teflon baUer to minimize aeration and possible loss of volatUes during

sample coUection

The samples were coUected in one gallon amber glass bottles and stored at 4degC Each

sample bottle wasfiUed to exclude a headspace in the bottle

e 10

200 200

SCALE IN FEET

D CAP ROCK SAMPLE LOCATION

bull WELLS

nOURE 1-2 GROUNDWATER AND TRENCH AND CAP

ROCK SAMPLING LOCATIONS

11

E T C A L F a EDDY

c TABLE 1-5 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING SUMMARY

Mode of Date WeU Amount Sampled pH Temp degC Conductivity SampUng

11392 MW-IA 10 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm pump

12792 MW-IA 16 gaUons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20392 MW-IA 16 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20592 ME-8 2 gallons 64 8deg 230 umhocm baUer

1222 Precipitation Testing

General Chemical precipitation for the removal of metals was evaluated at three pH values

and three polymer dosages to determine the effectiveness of the treatment A preliminary

evaluation of different coagulants and polymers was conducted at three pH values by

r Metcalf amp Eddy personnel and a leading polymer vendor to determine which chemicals could

potentiaUy be used to precipitate groundwater Based on the results from the preliminary

evaluation jar tests were conducted by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel to aid in the determination

of the chemical dosages required to optimize the effectiveness of precipitation

Polymer and Coagulent Testing Polymer testing was performed by Metcalf amp Eddy and a

leading polymer vendor at the ENSECO laboratory faciUty in Cambridge Massachusetts

The effectiveness of anionic cationic and nonioiuc polymer was evaluated at three pH

values The best polymer was determined to be Drewfloc 2270 a low charge anionic high

molecular weight polymer This polymer was used in jar tests 1 through 5 The best

coagulent was determined to be Charge Pack 12 (CP-12) a higher charge cationic low

molecular weight coagulent The CP-12 coagulent was used in jar tests 1 through 5

described under jar testing

12 c

InitiaUy the effects of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was investigated Tests c were conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 with sodium hydroxide which had the best

settling characteristics based on visual observation and turbidity measurement Each polymer

was then tested at pH = 100 to evaluate Us effectiveness under optimum pH conditions

A formula of polymer and coagulant addition was developed based on visual observations

suspended soUds and turbidity analyses performed on each sample generated during the

investigation The anionic polymer effectively flocculated the existing smaU suspended

particles and the addkion of cationic coagulant removed iron and color when the pH was

raised to 100

Jar Testing Five jar tests were performed using the polymer and coagulants determined to

be effective during preliminary testing Jar tests 1 and 4 were conducted as dupUcates at

ph 10 Jar test 2 was conducted at pH 9 jar test 3 was conducted at pH 8 and jar test 5 was

conducted at pH 10 On each occasion prior to beginning the jar test the raw groundwater

was brought tol5deg-17degCina warm water bath The temperature was held constant to c eliminate the effects of temperature on reaction rates and solubUity

The foUowing is a description of activities conducted during the jar tests fti through 4 See

Figure 1-1 for details Four samples were evaluated during each jar test For each jar test

four 15 Uter beakers were fiUed with 1 Uter of raw groundwater The beakers were placed

on the stirrer platform and the paddles were lowered into the sample The jar stirrer was

operated at 80 revolutions per minute (rpm) The pH was then adjusted to the desired value

(pH = 10 9 8 10 for Tests 1 2 3 4) with a lime slurry in two samples and with a

sodium hydroxide solution (25) in the remaining two samples Lime was added to

investigate its effects on the precipitate and to evaluate its effectiveness in pH adjustment

The cationic coagulant was then added to each sample untU the concentration in solution was

30 mgL The solution was stirred at 80 rpm for 2 minutes to ensure complete mixing The

polymer was then added to one sample pH adjusted with sodium hydroxide and one sample

pH adjusted with lime Mixing continued for two minutes Next the solution was stirred

13 c

slowly orflocculated for five minutes at 20 rpm FinaUy the solutions were aUowed to

c settle for 10 minutes Visual observations were recorded and samples were submitted for

suspended soUds turbidity and metals analyses

Jar test 5 was performed to assess the removal of manganese and aluminum by preaeration

and permanganate additions (see Figure 1-1) Because no significant benefit was observed in

the previous tests when lime was used instead of sodium hydroxide sodium hydroxide was

used to adjust the pH in aU four samples to a pH of 100 in jar test 5 Only sodium

hydroxide was added to the groundwater in the first jar to determine the removal of

manganese and aluminum attributable to the formation of an insoluble salt at high pH

Sodium hydroxide and polymer were added to the second jar to evaluate the effectiveness of

the polymer Sodium hydroxide polymer and coagulant were added to sample 4 The

supemate from sample 4 was then fUtered This was performed to determine if the required

removal efficiencies could be achieved by chemical precipitation and filtration

Permanganate was added to sample 3 in addition to sodium hydroxide coagulant and

polymer to determine if the manganese and aluminum present could be chemicaUy oxidized c to a less soluble state which would enhance the efficiency of fUtration The supemate was

then siphoned off using clean tygon tubing and a syringe into the sample containers

Samples were submitted for metals suspended soUds and turbidity as illustrated on

Figure 1-1

1223 Filtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was perfonned to determine the

optimum pore size of filter media that could effectively remove the suspended soUds in the

precipitated groundwater The determination of the removal efficiency for each filter was

based on the concentration of suspended soUds and turbidity of the filtered water The time

required to filter the groundwater was also evaluated

Prior to filtration the metals in the groundwater were precipitated and coagulent and polymer

were added using the optimum conditions developed during the precipitation study The

optimum conditions consisted of pH adjustment to 10 with sodium hydroxide addition of

14 c

coagulent CP-12 to a concentration of one percent and addition of Drewfloc 2270 polymer to

c a concentration of 10 mgl Three grades (10 xm 5 xm and 1 xm pore sizes) of filter

paper were used with a Buchner ftmnel to filter aUquots of the precipitated groundwater

Samples of the filtered water were submitted to ENSECO for suspended soUds and turbidity

analysis

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge was coUected during the treatability study The

sludge sample was submitted to the CLP system for PCB and metals analysis so that a

characterization of the sludge could be made and disposal options could be evaluated

1224 Air Stripping Testing Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at three

different air to water ratios to determine the most effective stripping ratio To ensure that

worst case volatUe organic compound concentrations were present in the samples for this

study some modifications were made in how the sample was coUected and treated First

the groundwater was coUected with a baUer to prevent the loss of volatUes AdditionaUy the

water was fUtered under positive pressure foUowing the precipitation step to minimize the c loss of volatUes that would result if the water was filtered using a vacuum pump

An aquarium pump tygon tubing and aeration stone with a glass-fiber fUter cartridge was

used to aerate 1-Uter aUquots of precipitated and filtered groundwater The aeration flow

rate was caUbrated by filling a graduated cylinder with air that had been filled with tap water

and inverted in a water bath The air was diffused at 375 missec into 1-Uter aUquots of

groundwater and the time measured as iUustrated in Table 1-6 The aerated groundwater was

submitted to ENSECO for volatUe organics analysis

1225 Carbon Adsorption Testing The effectiveness of activated carbon for the removal

of organic compounds in the groundwater at the site was evaluated The carbon used was

the powdered activated 325 mesh carbon suppUed by Calgon Corporation The groundwater

samples used for this investigation were obtained and filtered as described in the air stripping

15 c

c

c

TABLE 1-6 AERATION TEST OPERATIONS

Air to Water Ratio Volume Volume of by Volume of Water Air Reqd Min of Aeration

251 1000 ml 25000 ml 111 501 1000 ml 50000 ml 222 751 1000 ml 75000 ml 333

section of this report to minimize the loss of volatUes A total of twelve samples were mn

during this investigation The necessity of air stripping was investigated by comparing the

resuUs from four samples that were air stripped to seven samples that were treated identicaUy

with the exception of air stripping AU samples for the air stripping comparison went

through the precipitation filtration and carbon adsorption processes AdditionaUy one

sample was prepared with no carbon added to serve as an untreated sample The samples are

summarized in Table 1-7 Each groundwater sample was prepared and mixed with a

predetermined dose of Calgon powdered 325 mesh activated carbon and placed m an open

Erlenmyer flask on a shaker table for a two-hour time period at 180 rpm A rotary shaker

table capable of accommodating twelve (12)-1000 ml Erlenmyer flasks was used Effluent

was fUtered with a barrel filter using a glass-fiber pre-fUter and a Whatman 45 micron

membrane The effluent clear and odorless in aU cases was added to sample containers

preserved and packed for shipment to CLP laboratories Since the shaker table could

accommodate 12 flasks a total of approximately 4 gaUons of effluent was generated during

each mn Several mns were performed to generate adequate quantities of sample for

analysis accordmg to Table 1-7 Groundwater was simUarly prepared for submittal to

Aquatec Lab in Burlington Vermont for chronic toxicity testing Three (3) shipments of

approximately 2 gaUons each were made

r 16

C) o o TABLE 1-7 CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation Filtration Aeration amp Carbon

AC-1 05 V SV MET 3400 3 1067 054 AC-2 20 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 22 AC-3 50 V SV MET 3400 3 1133 57 AC-4 100 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 110 AC-5 Trip Blank 0 V

Precipitation Filtration amp Carbon

C-0 0 V 500 1 500 0

C-1 05 V SV MET 3200 3 1067 053

c-2 10 V PCB 2200 2 1100 11

C-3 20 V SV CT 29000 24 1250 25

C-4 50 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 55

C-17 70 V MET 1200 1 1200 70

C-18 100 V SV 2200 2 1100 110

C-13 Treatability Blank 0 V PCB 2200 0 0 0

C-20 Trip Blank 0 V 0

C-10 Duplicate of C-1 05 SV 2000 2 1000 05

C-1 05 (MSMSD) 500 1 500 025

C-11 Duplicate of C-1 05 MET 1000 1 1000 05

C-20 Duplicate of C-2 10 V PCB (MSMSD)

4400 4 1100 11

C-16 Duplicate of C-4 50 PCB 2000 2 1000 50

C-6 0 PCB 2000 2 1000 0

17

o o n TABLE 1-7 (Continued) CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation amp Filtration

PPF-1 V SV MET PCB 2000 2 1000 0

Sludge

Sludge-1 0 MET PCB 0

V = VolatUe organics SV = Semivolatile organics MET = Metals PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls CT = Chronic toxicity MSMSD = Matrix spikematrix spike dup D = DupUcate TB = Trip blank PPF = Precipitated and pressure filtered

(to minimize volatUes loss as opposed to vacuum filtration)

18

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

o JAR TESTING SAMPLE ID

o

POLYMER TESTING

RAW GROUNDWATER

VOL 1 SVOL I p PCB f ^ ^ METALS

mdash SST

T

T

T

SS - Choose Polymer T ar)d Dose Estimate pH pf i After Coagu lant

Jar Test 1 PH10 bull

Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

Ume wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

Jar Test 2 pH9

Jar Test 3 pH8

bull

Lime w C oag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

JT1 -1 shy

j r i -2 shy

JT1 -3 shy

JTI-4

j r 2 - 1

JT2-2 shy

JT2-3

j r2-4 bull

JT3-1 shy

JT3-2shy

JT3-3 bull

JT3-4 shy

HLTRATION TESTING

RIter Paper 1 - SS T Time mdash |

RIter Paper 2 - SS T Time-

Rlter Paper 3 - SS T Time -

CtHXise Filter Paper or Particle Retention Size

Sample Well Using Bailer

VOL SVOL PCB CLPMETALS (PPF-1)

Precipitate and Filter Using Optimized Polymer pH Coagulant and Filter

lt

AIR STRIPPING

AJrWater Ratio 1

AirWater Ratio 2

AirWater Ratio3 ~

VOLmdash1

-VOL

-VOLmdash

SAMPLE ID CARBON ADSORPTION (All by CLP)

Carbon mdashVOL SVOL Metals AC-1

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-2

Dose 3 mdash ^ deg shy reg ^ deg ^^reg ^ ^

Carbon

Dose1

Carbon Dose 2

Cartwn

Dose 4

Cartxjn Dose 1

Carbon Dose2~

Carbon Dose 3

Carbon Dose4~

mdashVOL SVOL PCB AC-4

-VOL C-1

-VOL SVOL Metals C-2

-VOL PCB C-3

bull VOL SVOL Chronic Toxicity C-4

Jar Test 4 pH 10 Dup

bull

- Lime wCoag wPdymer - SS T Metals

- Lime wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals

- NaOH wCoag wPolymer - SS T Metals

Jr4-1

JT4-2

JT4-3

Carbon Doses

Cartxgtn Dose 6

-VOL SVOL PCB

mdash VOL Metals

C-5

C-6

- NaOH wCoag wo Polymer - SS T Metals JT4-4

VOL = Volatile Organics SVOL = Semi Volatile Organics

Carbon Dose 7

mdashVOL SVOL C-7

SS = Suspended Solids

NaOH-MNAL JT5-1 T = Turbidity

Jar Test 5 pHIO

NaOH - wPolymer - MN AL

NaOH wPoly wCoag RItered - MN AL

JT5-2

JT5-3

NaOH wPdy wCoag Aerated andRItered - MN AL

JT5-4

^ NaOH wPdy wCoag PermanganateRItered - MN M

JT5-5

J O Special FIGURE 1-1 TREATABILITY STUDY

Optimize pH Decide Ume or NaOH

SAMPUNG AND ANALYSIS SCHEMATIC

Compare Polymer vs Coagulant

(J DF222658HW

c

c

TABLE 1-4 TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Number Bench Scale Process

Groundwater Treatability Study

Initial Groundwater

Preliminary Polymer Testing

Precipitation Supemant

FUtration Effluent

Metals Sludge Precipitated and FUtered Effluent with Groundwater CoUected with BaUer

Air Stripping Effluent

Air Stripped Carbon Adsorption Effluent

Non Air Stripped Carbon Effluent

Sludge Sample

Rock Washing Study

Initial Rocks Initial Gravel from roof Stone from Cap Washed Rocks Washed Stones

Samples

1

1 1

16 16 16

3 3

1 2 2 2

3

4 4 2 2

7 4 2 2 1 1

3 5 6 3 1

Analysis

VolatUes SemivolatUes PCB Metals Suspended SoUds pH Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity Metals VolatUe Organics

Suspended SoUds TuAidity

PCB VolatUe Organics PCB SemivolatUe Organics

VolatUe Organics

SemivolatUe Organics VolatUe Organics Metals PCB

VolatUe Organics SemivolatUe Organics Metals PCB Chronic Toxicity PCBs Metals

PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB

Laboratory

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

c

c

c

system for volatUes semivolatUes PCBs and metals AU interim samples were analyzed at

ENSECO in Cambridge Massachusetts AU data was vaUdated by MampE according to the

QAPP

1221 Groundwater Sample CoUection Groundwater for this study was coUected from

weUs MW-IA and ME-8 as shown on Figure 1-2 iMW-lA was chosen as a sampling

location because it was determined to be one of the most contaminated weUs on-site based

on previous investigations During the course of the treatabiUty study a decision was made

to obtain samples from ME-8 because results of the most recent sampling effort conducted by

ICF indicated that groundwater from this weU contained approximately 200 xgL vinyl

chloride whereas groundwater from MW-IA no longer contained any quantifiable amount

Removal of vinyl chloride by aeration needed to be demonstrated during this investigation

because vinyl chloride is not effectively removed by carbon adsorption

Groundwater samples were obtained on four separate occasions during the study as shown in

Table 1-5 On each occasion the groundwater was coUected in accordance with the Field

Sampling Plan Three weU volumes of water were purged from the weU using a centrifiigal

pump before any samples were coUected The pH temperature and conductivity of the

purge water was measured after each weU volume untU the measured values differed by less

than 10 for three consecutive samples to ensure the sample drawn was representative of the

water in the aquifer Samples for the metals precipitation and filtration study were coUected

using a centrifugal pump Samples for the air stripping and carbon adsorption study were

coUected with a teflon baUer to minimize aeration and possible loss of volatUes during

sample coUection

The samples were coUected in one gallon amber glass bottles and stored at 4degC Each

sample bottle wasfiUed to exclude a headspace in the bottle

e 10

200 200

SCALE IN FEET

D CAP ROCK SAMPLE LOCATION

bull WELLS

nOURE 1-2 GROUNDWATER AND TRENCH AND CAP

ROCK SAMPLING LOCATIONS

11

E T C A L F a EDDY

c TABLE 1-5 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING SUMMARY

Mode of Date WeU Amount Sampled pH Temp degC Conductivity SampUng

11392 MW-IA 10 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm pump

12792 MW-IA 16 gaUons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20392 MW-IA 16 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20592 ME-8 2 gallons 64 8deg 230 umhocm baUer

1222 Precipitation Testing

General Chemical precipitation for the removal of metals was evaluated at three pH values

and three polymer dosages to determine the effectiveness of the treatment A preliminary

evaluation of different coagulants and polymers was conducted at three pH values by

r Metcalf amp Eddy personnel and a leading polymer vendor to determine which chemicals could

potentiaUy be used to precipitate groundwater Based on the results from the preliminary

evaluation jar tests were conducted by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel to aid in the determination

of the chemical dosages required to optimize the effectiveness of precipitation

Polymer and Coagulent Testing Polymer testing was performed by Metcalf amp Eddy and a

leading polymer vendor at the ENSECO laboratory faciUty in Cambridge Massachusetts

The effectiveness of anionic cationic and nonioiuc polymer was evaluated at three pH

values The best polymer was determined to be Drewfloc 2270 a low charge anionic high

molecular weight polymer This polymer was used in jar tests 1 through 5 The best

coagulent was determined to be Charge Pack 12 (CP-12) a higher charge cationic low

molecular weight coagulent The CP-12 coagulent was used in jar tests 1 through 5

described under jar testing

12 c

InitiaUy the effects of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was investigated Tests c were conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 with sodium hydroxide which had the best

settling characteristics based on visual observation and turbidity measurement Each polymer

was then tested at pH = 100 to evaluate Us effectiveness under optimum pH conditions

A formula of polymer and coagulant addition was developed based on visual observations

suspended soUds and turbidity analyses performed on each sample generated during the

investigation The anionic polymer effectively flocculated the existing smaU suspended

particles and the addkion of cationic coagulant removed iron and color when the pH was

raised to 100

Jar Testing Five jar tests were performed using the polymer and coagulants determined to

be effective during preliminary testing Jar tests 1 and 4 were conducted as dupUcates at

ph 10 Jar test 2 was conducted at pH 9 jar test 3 was conducted at pH 8 and jar test 5 was

conducted at pH 10 On each occasion prior to beginning the jar test the raw groundwater

was brought tol5deg-17degCina warm water bath The temperature was held constant to c eliminate the effects of temperature on reaction rates and solubUity

The foUowing is a description of activities conducted during the jar tests fti through 4 See

Figure 1-1 for details Four samples were evaluated during each jar test For each jar test

four 15 Uter beakers were fiUed with 1 Uter of raw groundwater The beakers were placed

on the stirrer platform and the paddles were lowered into the sample The jar stirrer was

operated at 80 revolutions per minute (rpm) The pH was then adjusted to the desired value

(pH = 10 9 8 10 for Tests 1 2 3 4) with a lime slurry in two samples and with a

sodium hydroxide solution (25) in the remaining two samples Lime was added to

investigate its effects on the precipitate and to evaluate its effectiveness in pH adjustment

The cationic coagulant was then added to each sample untU the concentration in solution was

30 mgL The solution was stirred at 80 rpm for 2 minutes to ensure complete mixing The

polymer was then added to one sample pH adjusted with sodium hydroxide and one sample

pH adjusted with lime Mixing continued for two minutes Next the solution was stirred

13 c

slowly orflocculated for five minutes at 20 rpm FinaUy the solutions were aUowed to

c settle for 10 minutes Visual observations were recorded and samples were submitted for

suspended soUds turbidity and metals analyses

Jar test 5 was performed to assess the removal of manganese and aluminum by preaeration

and permanganate additions (see Figure 1-1) Because no significant benefit was observed in

the previous tests when lime was used instead of sodium hydroxide sodium hydroxide was

used to adjust the pH in aU four samples to a pH of 100 in jar test 5 Only sodium

hydroxide was added to the groundwater in the first jar to determine the removal of

manganese and aluminum attributable to the formation of an insoluble salt at high pH

Sodium hydroxide and polymer were added to the second jar to evaluate the effectiveness of

the polymer Sodium hydroxide polymer and coagulant were added to sample 4 The

supemate from sample 4 was then fUtered This was performed to determine if the required

removal efficiencies could be achieved by chemical precipitation and filtration

Permanganate was added to sample 3 in addition to sodium hydroxide coagulant and

polymer to determine if the manganese and aluminum present could be chemicaUy oxidized c to a less soluble state which would enhance the efficiency of fUtration The supemate was

then siphoned off using clean tygon tubing and a syringe into the sample containers

Samples were submitted for metals suspended soUds and turbidity as illustrated on

Figure 1-1

1223 Filtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was perfonned to determine the

optimum pore size of filter media that could effectively remove the suspended soUds in the

precipitated groundwater The determination of the removal efficiency for each filter was

based on the concentration of suspended soUds and turbidity of the filtered water The time

required to filter the groundwater was also evaluated

Prior to filtration the metals in the groundwater were precipitated and coagulent and polymer

were added using the optimum conditions developed during the precipitation study The

optimum conditions consisted of pH adjustment to 10 with sodium hydroxide addition of

14 c

coagulent CP-12 to a concentration of one percent and addition of Drewfloc 2270 polymer to

c a concentration of 10 mgl Three grades (10 xm 5 xm and 1 xm pore sizes) of filter

paper were used with a Buchner ftmnel to filter aUquots of the precipitated groundwater

Samples of the filtered water were submitted to ENSECO for suspended soUds and turbidity

analysis

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge was coUected during the treatability study The

sludge sample was submitted to the CLP system for PCB and metals analysis so that a

characterization of the sludge could be made and disposal options could be evaluated

1224 Air Stripping Testing Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at three

different air to water ratios to determine the most effective stripping ratio To ensure that

worst case volatUe organic compound concentrations were present in the samples for this

study some modifications were made in how the sample was coUected and treated First

the groundwater was coUected with a baUer to prevent the loss of volatUes AdditionaUy the

water was fUtered under positive pressure foUowing the precipitation step to minimize the c loss of volatUes that would result if the water was filtered using a vacuum pump

An aquarium pump tygon tubing and aeration stone with a glass-fiber fUter cartridge was

used to aerate 1-Uter aUquots of precipitated and filtered groundwater The aeration flow

rate was caUbrated by filling a graduated cylinder with air that had been filled with tap water

and inverted in a water bath The air was diffused at 375 missec into 1-Uter aUquots of

groundwater and the time measured as iUustrated in Table 1-6 The aerated groundwater was

submitted to ENSECO for volatUe organics analysis

1225 Carbon Adsorption Testing The effectiveness of activated carbon for the removal

of organic compounds in the groundwater at the site was evaluated The carbon used was

the powdered activated 325 mesh carbon suppUed by Calgon Corporation The groundwater

samples used for this investigation were obtained and filtered as described in the air stripping

15 c

c

c

TABLE 1-6 AERATION TEST OPERATIONS

Air to Water Ratio Volume Volume of by Volume of Water Air Reqd Min of Aeration

251 1000 ml 25000 ml 111 501 1000 ml 50000 ml 222 751 1000 ml 75000 ml 333

section of this report to minimize the loss of volatUes A total of twelve samples were mn

during this investigation The necessity of air stripping was investigated by comparing the

resuUs from four samples that were air stripped to seven samples that were treated identicaUy

with the exception of air stripping AU samples for the air stripping comparison went

through the precipitation filtration and carbon adsorption processes AdditionaUy one

sample was prepared with no carbon added to serve as an untreated sample The samples are

summarized in Table 1-7 Each groundwater sample was prepared and mixed with a

predetermined dose of Calgon powdered 325 mesh activated carbon and placed m an open

Erlenmyer flask on a shaker table for a two-hour time period at 180 rpm A rotary shaker

table capable of accommodating twelve (12)-1000 ml Erlenmyer flasks was used Effluent

was fUtered with a barrel filter using a glass-fiber pre-fUter and a Whatman 45 micron

membrane The effluent clear and odorless in aU cases was added to sample containers

preserved and packed for shipment to CLP laboratories Since the shaker table could

accommodate 12 flasks a total of approximately 4 gaUons of effluent was generated during

each mn Several mns were performed to generate adequate quantities of sample for

analysis accordmg to Table 1-7 Groundwater was simUarly prepared for submittal to

Aquatec Lab in Burlington Vermont for chronic toxicity testing Three (3) shipments of

approximately 2 gaUons each were made

r 16

C) o o TABLE 1-7 CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation Filtration Aeration amp Carbon

AC-1 05 V SV MET 3400 3 1067 054 AC-2 20 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 22 AC-3 50 V SV MET 3400 3 1133 57 AC-4 100 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 110 AC-5 Trip Blank 0 V

Precipitation Filtration amp Carbon

C-0 0 V 500 1 500 0

C-1 05 V SV MET 3200 3 1067 053

c-2 10 V PCB 2200 2 1100 11

C-3 20 V SV CT 29000 24 1250 25

C-4 50 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 55

C-17 70 V MET 1200 1 1200 70

C-18 100 V SV 2200 2 1100 110

C-13 Treatability Blank 0 V PCB 2200 0 0 0

C-20 Trip Blank 0 V 0

C-10 Duplicate of C-1 05 SV 2000 2 1000 05

C-1 05 (MSMSD) 500 1 500 025

C-11 Duplicate of C-1 05 MET 1000 1 1000 05

C-20 Duplicate of C-2 10 V PCB (MSMSD)

4400 4 1100 11

C-16 Duplicate of C-4 50 PCB 2000 2 1000 50

C-6 0 PCB 2000 2 1000 0

17

o o n TABLE 1-7 (Continued) CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation amp Filtration

PPF-1 V SV MET PCB 2000 2 1000 0

Sludge

Sludge-1 0 MET PCB 0

V = VolatUe organics SV = Semivolatile organics MET = Metals PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls CT = Chronic toxicity MSMSD = Matrix spikematrix spike dup D = DupUcate TB = Trip blank PPF = Precipitated and pressure filtered

(to minimize volatUes loss as opposed to vacuum filtration)

18

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

c

c

TABLE 1-4 TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Number Bench Scale Process

Groundwater Treatability Study

Initial Groundwater

Preliminary Polymer Testing

Precipitation Supemant

FUtration Effluent

Metals Sludge Precipitated and FUtered Effluent with Groundwater CoUected with BaUer

Air Stripping Effluent

Air Stripped Carbon Adsorption Effluent

Non Air Stripped Carbon Effluent

Sludge Sample

Rock Washing Study

Initial Rocks Initial Gravel from roof Stone from Cap Washed Rocks Washed Stones

Samples

1

1 1

16 16 16

3 3

1 2 2 2

3

4 4 2 2

7 4 2 2 1 1

3 5 6 3 1

Analysis

VolatUes SemivolatUes PCB Metals Suspended SoUds pH Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Suspended SoUds Turbidity Metals VolatUe Organics

Suspended SoUds TuAidity

PCB VolatUe Organics PCB SemivolatUe Organics

VolatUe Organics

SemivolatUe Organics VolatUe Organics Metals PCB

VolatUe Organics SemivolatUe Organics Metals PCB Chronic Toxicity PCBs Metals

PCB PCB PCB PCB PCB

Laboratory

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP

CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

Non-CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

CLP CLP CLP CLP

Non-CLP CLP

Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP Non-CLP

c

c

c

system for volatUes semivolatUes PCBs and metals AU interim samples were analyzed at

ENSECO in Cambridge Massachusetts AU data was vaUdated by MampE according to the

QAPP

1221 Groundwater Sample CoUection Groundwater for this study was coUected from

weUs MW-IA and ME-8 as shown on Figure 1-2 iMW-lA was chosen as a sampling

location because it was determined to be one of the most contaminated weUs on-site based

on previous investigations During the course of the treatabiUty study a decision was made

to obtain samples from ME-8 because results of the most recent sampling effort conducted by

ICF indicated that groundwater from this weU contained approximately 200 xgL vinyl

chloride whereas groundwater from MW-IA no longer contained any quantifiable amount

Removal of vinyl chloride by aeration needed to be demonstrated during this investigation

because vinyl chloride is not effectively removed by carbon adsorption

Groundwater samples were obtained on four separate occasions during the study as shown in

Table 1-5 On each occasion the groundwater was coUected in accordance with the Field

Sampling Plan Three weU volumes of water were purged from the weU using a centrifiigal

pump before any samples were coUected The pH temperature and conductivity of the

purge water was measured after each weU volume untU the measured values differed by less

than 10 for three consecutive samples to ensure the sample drawn was representative of the

water in the aquifer Samples for the metals precipitation and filtration study were coUected

using a centrifugal pump Samples for the air stripping and carbon adsorption study were

coUected with a teflon baUer to minimize aeration and possible loss of volatUes during

sample coUection

The samples were coUected in one gallon amber glass bottles and stored at 4degC Each

sample bottle wasfiUed to exclude a headspace in the bottle

e 10

200 200

SCALE IN FEET

D CAP ROCK SAMPLE LOCATION

bull WELLS

nOURE 1-2 GROUNDWATER AND TRENCH AND CAP

ROCK SAMPLING LOCATIONS

11

E T C A L F a EDDY

c TABLE 1-5 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING SUMMARY

Mode of Date WeU Amount Sampled pH Temp degC Conductivity SampUng

11392 MW-IA 10 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm pump

12792 MW-IA 16 gaUons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20392 MW-IA 16 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20592 ME-8 2 gallons 64 8deg 230 umhocm baUer

1222 Precipitation Testing

General Chemical precipitation for the removal of metals was evaluated at three pH values

and three polymer dosages to determine the effectiveness of the treatment A preliminary

evaluation of different coagulants and polymers was conducted at three pH values by

r Metcalf amp Eddy personnel and a leading polymer vendor to determine which chemicals could

potentiaUy be used to precipitate groundwater Based on the results from the preliminary

evaluation jar tests were conducted by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel to aid in the determination

of the chemical dosages required to optimize the effectiveness of precipitation

Polymer and Coagulent Testing Polymer testing was performed by Metcalf amp Eddy and a

leading polymer vendor at the ENSECO laboratory faciUty in Cambridge Massachusetts

The effectiveness of anionic cationic and nonioiuc polymer was evaluated at three pH

values The best polymer was determined to be Drewfloc 2270 a low charge anionic high

molecular weight polymer This polymer was used in jar tests 1 through 5 The best

coagulent was determined to be Charge Pack 12 (CP-12) a higher charge cationic low

molecular weight coagulent The CP-12 coagulent was used in jar tests 1 through 5

described under jar testing

12 c

InitiaUy the effects of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was investigated Tests c were conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 with sodium hydroxide which had the best

settling characteristics based on visual observation and turbidity measurement Each polymer

was then tested at pH = 100 to evaluate Us effectiveness under optimum pH conditions

A formula of polymer and coagulant addition was developed based on visual observations

suspended soUds and turbidity analyses performed on each sample generated during the

investigation The anionic polymer effectively flocculated the existing smaU suspended

particles and the addkion of cationic coagulant removed iron and color when the pH was

raised to 100

Jar Testing Five jar tests were performed using the polymer and coagulants determined to

be effective during preliminary testing Jar tests 1 and 4 were conducted as dupUcates at

ph 10 Jar test 2 was conducted at pH 9 jar test 3 was conducted at pH 8 and jar test 5 was

conducted at pH 10 On each occasion prior to beginning the jar test the raw groundwater

was brought tol5deg-17degCina warm water bath The temperature was held constant to c eliminate the effects of temperature on reaction rates and solubUity

The foUowing is a description of activities conducted during the jar tests fti through 4 See

Figure 1-1 for details Four samples were evaluated during each jar test For each jar test

four 15 Uter beakers were fiUed with 1 Uter of raw groundwater The beakers were placed

on the stirrer platform and the paddles were lowered into the sample The jar stirrer was

operated at 80 revolutions per minute (rpm) The pH was then adjusted to the desired value

(pH = 10 9 8 10 for Tests 1 2 3 4) with a lime slurry in two samples and with a

sodium hydroxide solution (25) in the remaining two samples Lime was added to

investigate its effects on the precipitate and to evaluate its effectiveness in pH adjustment

The cationic coagulant was then added to each sample untU the concentration in solution was

30 mgL The solution was stirred at 80 rpm for 2 minutes to ensure complete mixing The

polymer was then added to one sample pH adjusted with sodium hydroxide and one sample

pH adjusted with lime Mixing continued for two minutes Next the solution was stirred

13 c

slowly orflocculated for five minutes at 20 rpm FinaUy the solutions were aUowed to

c settle for 10 minutes Visual observations were recorded and samples were submitted for

suspended soUds turbidity and metals analyses

Jar test 5 was performed to assess the removal of manganese and aluminum by preaeration

and permanganate additions (see Figure 1-1) Because no significant benefit was observed in

the previous tests when lime was used instead of sodium hydroxide sodium hydroxide was

used to adjust the pH in aU four samples to a pH of 100 in jar test 5 Only sodium

hydroxide was added to the groundwater in the first jar to determine the removal of

manganese and aluminum attributable to the formation of an insoluble salt at high pH

Sodium hydroxide and polymer were added to the second jar to evaluate the effectiveness of

the polymer Sodium hydroxide polymer and coagulant were added to sample 4 The

supemate from sample 4 was then fUtered This was performed to determine if the required

removal efficiencies could be achieved by chemical precipitation and filtration

Permanganate was added to sample 3 in addition to sodium hydroxide coagulant and

polymer to determine if the manganese and aluminum present could be chemicaUy oxidized c to a less soluble state which would enhance the efficiency of fUtration The supemate was

then siphoned off using clean tygon tubing and a syringe into the sample containers

Samples were submitted for metals suspended soUds and turbidity as illustrated on

Figure 1-1

1223 Filtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was perfonned to determine the

optimum pore size of filter media that could effectively remove the suspended soUds in the

precipitated groundwater The determination of the removal efficiency for each filter was

based on the concentration of suspended soUds and turbidity of the filtered water The time

required to filter the groundwater was also evaluated

Prior to filtration the metals in the groundwater were precipitated and coagulent and polymer

were added using the optimum conditions developed during the precipitation study The

optimum conditions consisted of pH adjustment to 10 with sodium hydroxide addition of

14 c

coagulent CP-12 to a concentration of one percent and addition of Drewfloc 2270 polymer to

c a concentration of 10 mgl Three grades (10 xm 5 xm and 1 xm pore sizes) of filter

paper were used with a Buchner ftmnel to filter aUquots of the precipitated groundwater

Samples of the filtered water were submitted to ENSECO for suspended soUds and turbidity

analysis

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge was coUected during the treatability study The

sludge sample was submitted to the CLP system for PCB and metals analysis so that a

characterization of the sludge could be made and disposal options could be evaluated

1224 Air Stripping Testing Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at three

different air to water ratios to determine the most effective stripping ratio To ensure that

worst case volatUe organic compound concentrations were present in the samples for this

study some modifications were made in how the sample was coUected and treated First

the groundwater was coUected with a baUer to prevent the loss of volatUes AdditionaUy the

water was fUtered under positive pressure foUowing the precipitation step to minimize the c loss of volatUes that would result if the water was filtered using a vacuum pump

An aquarium pump tygon tubing and aeration stone with a glass-fiber fUter cartridge was

used to aerate 1-Uter aUquots of precipitated and filtered groundwater The aeration flow

rate was caUbrated by filling a graduated cylinder with air that had been filled with tap water

and inverted in a water bath The air was diffused at 375 missec into 1-Uter aUquots of

groundwater and the time measured as iUustrated in Table 1-6 The aerated groundwater was

submitted to ENSECO for volatUe organics analysis

1225 Carbon Adsorption Testing The effectiveness of activated carbon for the removal

of organic compounds in the groundwater at the site was evaluated The carbon used was

the powdered activated 325 mesh carbon suppUed by Calgon Corporation The groundwater

samples used for this investigation were obtained and filtered as described in the air stripping

15 c

c

c

TABLE 1-6 AERATION TEST OPERATIONS

Air to Water Ratio Volume Volume of by Volume of Water Air Reqd Min of Aeration

251 1000 ml 25000 ml 111 501 1000 ml 50000 ml 222 751 1000 ml 75000 ml 333

section of this report to minimize the loss of volatUes A total of twelve samples were mn

during this investigation The necessity of air stripping was investigated by comparing the

resuUs from four samples that were air stripped to seven samples that were treated identicaUy

with the exception of air stripping AU samples for the air stripping comparison went

through the precipitation filtration and carbon adsorption processes AdditionaUy one

sample was prepared with no carbon added to serve as an untreated sample The samples are

summarized in Table 1-7 Each groundwater sample was prepared and mixed with a

predetermined dose of Calgon powdered 325 mesh activated carbon and placed m an open

Erlenmyer flask on a shaker table for a two-hour time period at 180 rpm A rotary shaker

table capable of accommodating twelve (12)-1000 ml Erlenmyer flasks was used Effluent

was fUtered with a barrel filter using a glass-fiber pre-fUter and a Whatman 45 micron

membrane The effluent clear and odorless in aU cases was added to sample containers

preserved and packed for shipment to CLP laboratories Since the shaker table could

accommodate 12 flasks a total of approximately 4 gaUons of effluent was generated during

each mn Several mns were performed to generate adequate quantities of sample for

analysis accordmg to Table 1-7 Groundwater was simUarly prepared for submittal to

Aquatec Lab in Burlington Vermont for chronic toxicity testing Three (3) shipments of

approximately 2 gaUons each were made

r 16

C) o o TABLE 1-7 CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation Filtration Aeration amp Carbon

AC-1 05 V SV MET 3400 3 1067 054 AC-2 20 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 22 AC-3 50 V SV MET 3400 3 1133 57 AC-4 100 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 110 AC-5 Trip Blank 0 V

Precipitation Filtration amp Carbon

C-0 0 V 500 1 500 0

C-1 05 V SV MET 3200 3 1067 053

c-2 10 V PCB 2200 2 1100 11

C-3 20 V SV CT 29000 24 1250 25

C-4 50 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 55

C-17 70 V MET 1200 1 1200 70

C-18 100 V SV 2200 2 1100 110

C-13 Treatability Blank 0 V PCB 2200 0 0 0

C-20 Trip Blank 0 V 0

C-10 Duplicate of C-1 05 SV 2000 2 1000 05

C-1 05 (MSMSD) 500 1 500 025

C-11 Duplicate of C-1 05 MET 1000 1 1000 05

C-20 Duplicate of C-2 10 V PCB (MSMSD)

4400 4 1100 11

C-16 Duplicate of C-4 50 PCB 2000 2 1000 50

C-6 0 PCB 2000 2 1000 0

17

o o n TABLE 1-7 (Continued) CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation amp Filtration

PPF-1 V SV MET PCB 2000 2 1000 0

Sludge

Sludge-1 0 MET PCB 0

V = VolatUe organics SV = Semivolatile organics MET = Metals PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls CT = Chronic toxicity MSMSD = Matrix spikematrix spike dup D = DupUcate TB = Trip blank PPF = Precipitated and pressure filtered

(to minimize volatUes loss as opposed to vacuum filtration)

18

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

c

c

system for volatUes semivolatUes PCBs and metals AU interim samples were analyzed at

ENSECO in Cambridge Massachusetts AU data was vaUdated by MampE according to the

QAPP

1221 Groundwater Sample CoUection Groundwater for this study was coUected from

weUs MW-IA and ME-8 as shown on Figure 1-2 iMW-lA was chosen as a sampling

location because it was determined to be one of the most contaminated weUs on-site based

on previous investigations During the course of the treatabiUty study a decision was made

to obtain samples from ME-8 because results of the most recent sampling effort conducted by

ICF indicated that groundwater from this weU contained approximately 200 xgL vinyl

chloride whereas groundwater from MW-IA no longer contained any quantifiable amount

Removal of vinyl chloride by aeration needed to be demonstrated during this investigation

because vinyl chloride is not effectively removed by carbon adsorption

Groundwater samples were obtained on four separate occasions during the study as shown in

Table 1-5 On each occasion the groundwater was coUected in accordance with the Field

Sampling Plan Three weU volumes of water were purged from the weU using a centrifiigal

pump before any samples were coUected The pH temperature and conductivity of the

purge water was measured after each weU volume untU the measured values differed by less

than 10 for three consecutive samples to ensure the sample drawn was representative of the

water in the aquifer Samples for the metals precipitation and filtration study were coUected

using a centrifugal pump Samples for the air stripping and carbon adsorption study were

coUected with a teflon baUer to minimize aeration and possible loss of volatUes during

sample coUection

The samples were coUected in one gallon amber glass bottles and stored at 4degC Each

sample bottle wasfiUed to exclude a headspace in the bottle

e 10

200 200

SCALE IN FEET

D CAP ROCK SAMPLE LOCATION

bull WELLS

nOURE 1-2 GROUNDWATER AND TRENCH AND CAP

ROCK SAMPLING LOCATIONS

11

E T C A L F a EDDY

c TABLE 1-5 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING SUMMARY

Mode of Date WeU Amount Sampled pH Temp degC Conductivity SampUng

11392 MW-IA 10 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm pump

12792 MW-IA 16 gaUons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20392 MW-IA 16 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20592 ME-8 2 gallons 64 8deg 230 umhocm baUer

1222 Precipitation Testing

General Chemical precipitation for the removal of metals was evaluated at three pH values

and three polymer dosages to determine the effectiveness of the treatment A preliminary

evaluation of different coagulants and polymers was conducted at three pH values by

r Metcalf amp Eddy personnel and a leading polymer vendor to determine which chemicals could

potentiaUy be used to precipitate groundwater Based on the results from the preliminary

evaluation jar tests were conducted by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel to aid in the determination

of the chemical dosages required to optimize the effectiveness of precipitation

Polymer and Coagulent Testing Polymer testing was performed by Metcalf amp Eddy and a

leading polymer vendor at the ENSECO laboratory faciUty in Cambridge Massachusetts

The effectiveness of anionic cationic and nonioiuc polymer was evaluated at three pH

values The best polymer was determined to be Drewfloc 2270 a low charge anionic high

molecular weight polymer This polymer was used in jar tests 1 through 5 The best

coagulent was determined to be Charge Pack 12 (CP-12) a higher charge cationic low

molecular weight coagulent The CP-12 coagulent was used in jar tests 1 through 5

described under jar testing

12 c

InitiaUy the effects of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was investigated Tests c were conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 with sodium hydroxide which had the best

settling characteristics based on visual observation and turbidity measurement Each polymer

was then tested at pH = 100 to evaluate Us effectiveness under optimum pH conditions

A formula of polymer and coagulant addition was developed based on visual observations

suspended soUds and turbidity analyses performed on each sample generated during the

investigation The anionic polymer effectively flocculated the existing smaU suspended

particles and the addkion of cationic coagulant removed iron and color when the pH was

raised to 100

Jar Testing Five jar tests were performed using the polymer and coagulants determined to

be effective during preliminary testing Jar tests 1 and 4 were conducted as dupUcates at

ph 10 Jar test 2 was conducted at pH 9 jar test 3 was conducted at pH 8 and jar test 5 was

conducted at pH 10 On each occasion prior to beginning the jar test the raw groundwater

was brought tol5deg-17degCina warm water bath The temperature was held constant to c eliminate the effects of temperature on reaction rates and solubUity

The foUowing is a description of activities conducted during the jar tests fti through 4 See

Figure 1-1 for details Four samples were evaluated during each jar test For each jar test

four 15 Uter beakers were fiUed with 1 Uter of raw groundwater The beakers were placed

on the stirrer platform and the paddles were lowered into the sample The jar stirrer was

operated at 80 revolutions per minute (rpm) The pH was then adjusted to the desired value

(pH = 10 9 8 10 for Tests 1 2 3 4) with a lime slurry in two samples and with a

sodium hydroxide solution (25) in the remaining two samples Lime was added to

investigate its effects on the precipitate and to evaluate its effectiveness in pH adjustment

The cationic coagulant was then added to each sample untU the concentration in solution was

30 mgL The solution was stirred at 80 rpm for 2 minutes to ensure complete mixing The

polymer was then added to one sample pH adjusted with sodium hydroxide and one sample

pH adjusted with lime Mixing continued for two minutes Next the solution was stirred

13 c

slowly orflocculated for five minutes at 20 rpm FinaUy the solutions were aUowed to

c settle for 10 minutes Visual observations were recorded and samples were submitted for

suspended soUds turbidity and metals analyses

Jar test 5 was performed to assess the removal of manganese and aluminum by preaeration

and permanganate additions (see Figure 1-1) Because no significant benefit was observed in

the previous tests when lime was used instead of sodium hydroxide sodium hydroxide was

used to adjust the pH in aU four samples to a pH of 100 in jar test 5 Only sodium

hydroxide was added to the groundwater in the first jar to determine the removal of

manganese and aluminum attributable to the formation of an insoluble salt at high pH

Sodium hydroxide and polymer were added to the second jar to evaluate the effectiveness of

the polymer Sodium hydroxide polymer and coagulant were added to sample 4 The

supemate from sample 4 was then fUtered This was performed to determine if the required

removal efficiencies could be achieved by chemical precipitation and filtration

Permanganate was added to sample 3 in addition to sodium hydroxide coagulant and

polymer to determine if the manganese and aluminum present could be chemicaUy oxidized c to a less soluble state which would enhance the efficiency of fUtration The supemate was

then siphoned off using clean tygon tubing and a syringe into the sample containers

Samples were submitted for metals suspended soUds and turbidity as illustrated on

Figure 1-1

1223 Filtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was perfonned to determine the

optimum pore size of filter media that could effectively remove the suspended soUds in the

precipitated groundwater The determination of the removal efficiency for each filter was

based on the concentration of suspended soUds and turbidity of the filtered water The time

required to filter the groundwater was also evaluated

Prior to filtration the metals in the groundwater were precipitated and coagulent and polymer

were added using the optimum conditions developed during the precipitation study The

optimum conditions consisted of pH adjustment to 10 with sodium hydroxide addition of

14 c

coagulent CP-12 to a concentration of one percent and addition of Drewfloc 2270 polymer to

c a concentration of 10 mgl Three grades (10 xm 5 xm and 1 xm pore sizes) of filter

paper were used with a Buchner ftmnel to filter aUquots of the precipitated groundwater

Samples of the filtered water were submitted to ENSECO for suspended soUds and turbidity

analysis

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge was coUected during the treatability study The

sludge sample was submitted to the CLP system for PCB and metals analysis so that a

characterization of the sludge could be made and disposal options could be evaluated

1224 Air Stripping Testing Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at three

different air to water ratios to determine the most effective stripping ratio To ensure that

worst case volatUe organic compound concentrations were present in the samples for this

study some modifications were made in how the sample was coUected and treated First

the groundwater was coUected with a baUer to prevent the loss of volatUes AdditionaUy the

water was fUtered under positive pressure foUowing the precipitation step to minimize the c loss of volatUes that would result if the water was filtered using a vacuum pump

An aquarium pump tygon tubing and aeration stone with a glass-fiber fUter cartridge was

used to aerate 1-Uter aUquots of precipitated and filtered groundwater The aeration flow

rate was caUbrated by filling a graduated cylinder with air that had been filled with tap water

and inverted in a water bath The air was diffused at 375 missec into 1-Uter aUquots of

groundwater and the time measured as iUustrated in Table 1-6 The aerated groundwater was

submitted to ENSECO for volatUe organics analysis

1225 Carbon Adsorption Testing The effectiveness of activated carbon for the removal

of organic compounds in the groundwater at the site was evaluated The carbon used was

the powdered activated 325 mesh carbon suppUed by Calgon Corporation The groundwater

samples used for this investigation were obtained and filtered as described in the air stripping

15 c

c

c

TABLE 1-6 AERATION TEST OPERATIONS

Air to Water Ratio Volume Volume of by Volume of Water Air Reqd Min of Aeration

251 1000 ml 25000 ml 111 501 1000 ml 50000 ml 222 751 1000 ml 75000 ml 333

section of this report to minimize the loss of volatUes A total of twelve samples were mn

during this investigation The necessity of air stripping was investigated by comparing the

resuUs from four samples that were air stripped to seven samples that were treated identicaUy

with the exception of air stripping AU samples for the air stripping comparison went

through the precipitation filtration and carbon adsorption processes AdditionaUy one

sample was prepared with no carbon added to serve as an untreated sample The samples are

summarized in Table 1-7 Each groundwater sample was prepared and mixed with a

predetermined dose of Calgon powdered 325 mesh activated carbon and placed m an open

Erlenmyer flask on a shaker table for a two-hour time period at 180 rpm A rotary shaker

table capable of accommodating twelve (12)-1000 ml Erlenmyer flasks was used Effluent

was fUtered with a barrel filter using a glass-fiber pre-fUter and a Whatman 45 micron

membrane The effluent clear and odorless in aU cases was added to sample containers

preserved and packed for shipment to CLP laboratories Since the shaker table could

accommodate 12 flasks a total of approximately 4 gaUons of effluent was generated during

each mn Several mns were performed to generate adequate quantities of sample for

analysis accordmg to Table 1-7 Groundwater was simUarly prepared for submittal to

Aquatec Lab in Burlington Vermont for chronic toxicity testing Three (3) shipments of

approximately 2 gaUons each were made

r 16

C) o o TABLE 1-7 CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation Filtration Aeration amp Carbon

AC-1 05 V SV MET 3400 3 1067 054 AC-2 20 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 22 AC-3 50 V SV MET 3400 3 1133 57 AC-4 100 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 110 AC-5 Trip Blank 0 V

Precipitation Filtration amp Carbon

C-0 0 V 500 1 500 0

C-1 05 V SV MET 3200 3 1067 053

c-2 10 V PCB 2200 2 1100 11

C-3 20 V SV CT 29000 24 1250 25

C-4 50 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 55

C-17 70 V MET 1200 1 1200 70

C-18 100 V SV 2200 2 1100 110

C-13 Treatability Blank 0 V PCB 2200 0 0 0

C-20 Trip Blank 0 V 0

C-10 Duplicate of C-1 05 SV 2000 2 1000 05

C-1 05 (MSMSD) 500 1 500 025

C-11 Duplicate of C-1 05 MET 1000 1 1000 05

C-20 Duplicate of C-2 10 V PCB (MSMSD)

4400 4 1100 11

C-16 Duplicate of C-4 50 PCB 2000 2 1000 50

C-6 0 PCB 2000 2 1000 0

17

o o n TABLE 1-7 (Continued) CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation amp Filtration

PPF-1 V SV MET PCB 2000 2 1000 0

Sludge

Sludge-1 0 MET PCB 0

V = VolatUe organics SV = Semivolatile organics MET = Metals PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls CT = Chronic toxicity MSMSD = Matrix spikematrix spike dup D = DupUcate TB = Trip blank PPF = Precipitated and pressure filtered

(to minimize volatUes loss as opposed to vacuum filtration)

18

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

200 200

SCALE IN FEET

D CAP ROCK SAMPLE LOCATION

bull WELLS

nOURE 1-2 GROUNDWATER AND TRENCH AND CAP

ROCK SAMPLING LOCATIONS

11

E T C A L F a EDDY

c TABLE 1-5 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING SUMMARY

Mode of Date WeU Amount Sampled pH Temp degC Conductivity SampUng

11392 MW-IA 10 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm pump

12792 MW-IA 16 gaUons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20392 MW-IA 16 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20592 ME-8 2 gallons 64 8deg 230 umhocm baUer

1222 Precipitation Testing

General Chemical precipitation for the removal of metals was evaluated at three pH values

and three polymer dosages to determine the effectiveness of the treatment A preliminary

evaluation of different coagulants and polymers was conducted at three pH values by

r Metcalf amp Eddy personnel and a leading polymer vendor to determine which chemicals could

potentiaUy be used to precipitate groundwater Based on the results from the preliminary

evaluation jar tests were conducted by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel to aid in the determination

of the chemical dosages required to optimize the effectiveness of precipitation

Polymer and Coagulent Testing Polymer testing was performed by Metcalf amp Eddy and a

leading polymer vendor at the ENSECO laboratory faciUty in Cambridge Massachusetts

The effectiveness of anionic cationic and nonioiuc polymer was evaluated at three pH

values The best polymer was determined to be Drewfloc 2270 a low charge anionic high

molecular weight polymer This polymer was used in jar tests 1 through 5 The best

coagulent was determined to be Charge Pack 12 (CP-12) a higher charge cationic low

molecular weight coagulent The CP-12 coagulent was used in jar tests 1 through 5

described under jar testing

12 c

InitiaUy the effects of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was investigated Tests c were conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 with sodium hydroxide which had the best

settling characteristics based on visual observation and turbidity measurement Each polymer

was then tested at pH = 100 to evaluate Us effectiveness under optimum pH conditions

A formula of polymer and coagulant addition was developed based on visual observations

suspended soUds and turbidity analyses performed on each sample generated during the

investigation The anionic polymer effectively flocculated the existing smaU suspended

particles and the addkion of cationic coagulant removed iron and color when the pH was

raised to 100

Jar Testing Five jar tests were performed using the polymer and coagulants determined to

be effective during preliminary testing Jar tests 1 and 4 were conducted as dupUcates at

ph 10 Jar test 2 was conducted at pH 9 jar test 3 was conducted at pH 8 and jar test 5 was

conducted at pH 10 On each occasion prior to beginning the jar test the raw groundwater

was brought tol5deg-17degCina warm water bath The temperature was held constant to c eliminate the effects of temperature on reaction rates and solubUity

The foUowing is a description of activities conducted during the jar tests fti through 4 See

Figure 1-1 for details Four samples were evaluated during each jar test For each jar test

four 15 Uter beakers were fiUed with 1 Uter of raw groundwater The beakers were placed

on the stirrer platform and the paddles were lowered into the sample The jar stirrer was

operated at 80 revolutions per minute (rpm) The pH was then adjusted to the desired value

(pH = 10 9 8 10 for Tests 1 2 3 4) with a lime slurry in two samples and with a

sodium hydroxide solution (25) in the remaining two samples Lime was added to

investigate its effects on the precipitate and to evaluate its effectiveness in pH adjustment

The cationic coagulant was then added to each sample untU the concentration in solution was

30 mgL The solution was stirred at 80 rpm for 2 minutes to ensure complete mixing The

polymer was then added to one sample pH adjusted with sodium hydroxide and one sample

pH adjusted with lime Mixing continued for two minutes Next the solution was stirred

13 c

slowly orflocculated for five minutes at 20 rpm FinaUy the solutions were aUowed to

c settle for 10 minutes Visual observations were recorded and samples were submitted for

suspended soUds turbidity and metals analyses

Jar test 5 was performed to assess the removal of manganese and aluminum by preaeration

and permanganate additions (see Figure 1-1) Because no significant benefit was observed in

the previous tests when lime was used instead of sodium hydroxide sodium hydroxide was

used to adjust the pH in aU four samples to a pH of 100 in jar test 5 Only sodium

hydroxide was added to the groundwater in the first jar to determine the removal of

manganese and aluminum attributable to the formation of an insoluble salt at high pH

Sodium hydroxide and polymer were added to the second jar to evaluate the effectiveness of

the polymer Sodium hydroxide polymer and coagulant were added to sample 4 The

supemate from sample 4 was then fUtered This was performed to determine if the required

removal efficiencies could be achieved by chemical precipitation and filtration

Permanganate was added to sample 3 in addition to sodium hydroxide coagulant and

polymer to determine if the manganese and aluminum present could be chemicaUy oxidized c to a less soluble state which would enhance the efficiency of fUtration The supemate was

then siphoned off using clean tygon tubing and a syringe into the sample containers

Samples were submitted for metals suspended soUds and turbidity as illustrated on

Figure 1-1

1223 Filtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was perfonned to determine the

optimum pore size of filter media that could effectively remove the suspended soUds in the

precipitated groundwater The determination of the removal efficiency for each filter was

based on the concentration of suspended soUds and turbidity of the filtered water The time

required to filter the groundwater was also evaluated

Prior to filtration the metals in the groundwater were precipitated and coagulent and polymer

were added using the optimum conditions developed during the precipitation study The

optimum conditions consisted of pH adjustment to 10 with sodium hydroxide addition of

14 c

coagulent CP-12 to a concentration of one percent and addition of Drewfloc 2270 polymer to

c a concentration of 10 mgl Three grades (10 xm 5 xm and 1 xm pore sizes) of filter

paper were used with a Buchner ftmnel to filter aUquots of the precipitated groundwater

Samples of the filtered water were submitted to ENSECO for suspended soUds and turbidity

analysis

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge was coUected during the treatability study The

sludge sample was submitted to the CLP system for PCB and metals analysis so that a

characterization of the sludge could be made and disposal options could be evaluated

1224 Air Stripping Testing Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at three

different air to water ratios to determine the most effective stripping ratio To ensure that

worst case volatUe organic compound concentrations were present in the samples for this

study some modifications were made in how the sample was coUected and treated First

the groundwater was coUected with a baUer to prevent the loss of volatUes AdditionaUy the

water was fUtered under positive pressure foUowing the precipitation step to minimize the c loss of volatUes that would result if the water was filtered using a vacuum pump

An aquarium pump tygon tubing and aeration stone with a glass-fiber fUter cartridge was

used to aerate 1-Uter aUquots of precipitated and filtered groundwater The aeration flow

rate was caUbrated by filling a graduated cylinder with air that had been filled with tap water

and inverted in a water bath The air was diffused at 375 missec into 1-Uter aUquots of

groundwater and the time measured as iUustrated in Table 1-6 The aerated groundwater was

submitted to ENSECO for volatUe organics analysis

1225 Carbon Adsorption Testing The effectiveness of activated carbon for the removal

of organic compounds in the groundwater at the site was evaluated The carbon used was

the powdered activated 325 mesh carbon suppUed by Calgon Corporation The groundwater

samples used for this investigation were obtained and filtered as described in the air stripping

15 c

c

c

TABLE 1-6 AERATION TEST OPERATIONS

Air to Water Ratio Volume Volume of by Volume of Water Air Reqd Min of Aeration

251 1000 ml 25000 ml 111 501 1000 ml 50000 ml 222 751 1000 ml 75000 ml 333

section of this report to minimize the loss of volatUes A total of twelve samples were mn

during this investigation The necessity of air stripping was investigated by comparing the

resuUs from four samples that were air stripped to seven samples that were treated identicaUy

with the exception of air stripping AU samples for the air stripping comparison went

through the precipitation filtration and carbon adsorption processes AdditionaUy one

sample was prepared with no carbon added to serve as an untreated sample The samples are

summarized in Table 1-7 Each groundwater sample was prepared and mixed with a

predetermined dose of Calgon powdered 325 mesh activated carbon and placed m an open

Erlenmyer flask on a shaker table for a two-hour time period at 180 rpm A rotary shaker

table capable of accommodating twelve (12)-1000 ml Erlenmyer flasks was used Effluent

was fUtered with a barrel filter using a glass-fiber pre-fUter and a Whatman 45 micron

membrane The effluent clear and odorless in aU cases was added to sample containers

preserved and packed for shipment to CLP laboratories Since the shaker table could

accommodate 12 flasks a total of approximately 4 gaUons of effluent was generated during

each mn Several mns were performed to generate adequate quantities of sample for

analysis accordmg to Table 1-7 Groundwater was simUarly prepared for submittal to

Aquatec Lab in Burlington Vermont for chronic toxicity testing Three (3) shipments of

approximately 2 gaUons each were made

r 16

C) o o TABLE 1-7 CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation Filtration Aeration amp Carbon

AC-1 05 V SV MET 3400 3 1067 054 AC-2 20 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 22 AC-3 50 V SV MET 3400 3 1133 57 AC-4 100 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 110 AC-5 Trip Blank 0 V

Precipitation Filtration amp Carbon

C-0 0 V 500 1 500 0

C-1 05 V SV MET 3200 3 1067 053

c-2 10 V PCB 2200 2 1100 11

C-3 20 V SV CT 29000 24 1250 25

C-4 50 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 55

C-17 70 V MET 1200 1 1200 70

C-18 100 V SV 2200 2 1100 110

C-13 Treatability Blank 0 V PCB 2200 0 0 0

C-20 Trip Blank 0 V 0

C-10 Duplicate of C-1 05 SV 2000 2 1000 05

C-1 05 (MSMSD) 500 1 500 025

C-11 Duplicate of C-1 05 MET 1000 1 1000 05

C-20 Duplicate of C-2 10 V PCB (MSMSD)

4400 4 1100 11

C-16 Duplicate of C-4 50 PCB 2000 2 1000 50

C-6 0 PCB 2000 2 1000 0

17

o o n TABLE 1-7 (Continued) CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation amp Filtration

PPF-1 V SV MET PCB 2000 2 1000 0

Sludge

Sludge-1 0 MET PCB 0

V = VolatUe organics SV = Semivolatile organics MET = Metals PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls CT = Chronic toxicity MSMSD = Matrix spikematrix spike dup D = DupUcate TB = Trip blank PPF = Precipitated and pressure filtered

(to minimize volatUes loss as opposed to vacuum filtration)

18

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

c TABLE 1-5 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING SUMMARY

Mode of Date WeU Amount Sampled pH Temp degC Conductivity SampUng

11392 MW-IA 10 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm pump

12792 MW-IA 16 gaUons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20392 MW-IA 16 gallons 62 8deg 220 umhocm baUer

20592 ME-8 2 gallons 64 8deg 230 umhocm baUer

1222 Precipitation Testing

General Chemical precipitation for the removal of metals was evaluated at three pH values

and three polymer dosages to determine the effectiveness of the treatment A preliminary

evaluation of different coagulants and polymers was conducted at three pH values by

r Metcalf amp Eddy personnel and a leading polymer vendor to determine which chemicals could

potentiaUy be used to precipitate groundwater Based on the results from the preliminary

evaluation jar tests were conducted by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel to aid in the determination

of the chemical dosages required to optimize the effectiveness of precipitation

Polymer and Coagulent Testing Polymer testing was performed by Metcalf amp Eddy and a

leading polymer vendor at the ENSECO laboratory faciUty in Cambridge Massachusetts

The effectiveness of anionic cationic and nonioiuc polymer was evaluated at three pH

values The best polymer was determined to be Drewfloc 2270 a low charge anionic high

molecular weight polymer This polymer was used in jar tests 1 through 5 The best

coagulent was determined to be Charge Pack 12 (CP-12) a higher charge cationic low

molecular weight coagulent The CP-12 coagulent was used in jar tests 1 through 5

described under jar testing

12 c

InitiaUy the effects of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was investigated Tests c were conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 with sodium hydroxide which had the best

settling characteristics based on visual observation and turbidity measurement Each polymer

was then tested at pH = 100 to evaluate Us effectiveness under optimum pH conditions

A formula of polymer and coagulant addition was developed based on visual observations

suspended soUds and turbidity analyses performed on each sample generated during the

investigation The anionic polymer effectively flocculated the existing smaU suspended

particles and the addkion of cationic coagulant removed iron and color when the pH was

raised to 100

Jar Testing Five jar tests were performed using the polymer and coagulants determined to

be effective during preliminary testing Jar tests 1 and 4 were conducted as dupUcates at

ph 10 Jar test 2 was conducted at pH 9 jar test 3 was conducted at pH 8 and jar test 5 was

conducted at pH 10 On each occasion prior to beginning the jar test the raw groundwater

was brought tol5deg-17degCina warm water bath The temperature was held constant to c eliminate the effects of temperature on reaction rates and solubUity

The foUowing is a description of activities conducted during the jar tests fti through 4 See

Figure 1-1 for details Four samples were evaluated during each jar test For each jar test

four 15 Uter beakers were fiUed with 1 Uter of raw groundwater The beakers were placed

on the stirrer platform and the paddles were lowered into the sample The jar stirrer was

operated at 80 revolutions per minute (rpm) The pH was then adjusted to the desired value

(pH = 10 9 8 10 for Tests 1 2 3 4) with a lime slurry in two samples and with a

sodium hydroxide solution (25) in the remaining two samples Lime was added to

investigate its effects on the precipitate and to evaluate its effectiveness in pH adjustment

The cationic coagulant was then added to each sample untU the concentration in solution was

30 mgL The solution was stirred at 80 rpm for 2 minutes to ensure complete mixing The

polymer was then added to one sample pH adjusted with sodium hydroxide and one sample

pH adjusted with lime Mixing continued for two minutes Next the solution was stirred

13 c

slowly orflocculated for five minutes at 20 rpm FinaUy the solutions were aUowed to

c settle for 10 minutes Visual observations were recorded and samples were submitted for

suspended soUds turbidity and metals analyses

Jar test 5 was performed to assess the removal of manganese and aluminum by preaeration

and permanganate additions (see Figure 1-1) Because no significant benefit was observed in

the previous tests when lime was used instead of sodium hydroxide sodium hydroxide was

used to adjust the pH in aU four samples to a pH of 100 in jar test 5 Only sodium

hydroxide was added to the groundwater in the first jar to determine the removal of

manganese and aluminum attributable to the formation of an insoluble salt at high pH

Sodium hydroxide and polymer were added to the second jar to evaluate the effectiveness of

the polymer Sodium hydroxide polymer and coagulant were added to sample 4 The

supemate from sample 4 was then fUtered This was performed to determine if the required

removal efficiencies could be achieved by chemical precipitation and filtration

Permanganate was added to sample 3 in addition to sodium hydroxide coagulant and

polymer to determine if the manganese and aluminum present could be chemicaUy oxidized c to a less soluble state which would enhance the efficiency of fUtration The supemate was

then siphoned off using clean tygon tubing and a syringe into the sample containers

Samples were submitted for metals suspended soUds and turbidity as illustrated on

Figure 1-1

1223 Filtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was perfonned to determine the

optimum pore size of filter media that could effectively remove the suspended soUds in the

precipitated groundwater The determination of the removal efficiency for each filter was

based on the concentration of suspended soUds and turbidity of the filtered water The time

required to filter the groundwater was also evaluated

Prior to filtration the metals in the groundwater were precipitated and coagulent and polymer

were added using the optimum conditions developed during the precipitation study The

optimum conditions consisted of pH adjustment to 10 with sodium hydroxide addition of

14 c

coagulent CP-12 to a concentration of one percent and addition of Drewfloc 2270 polymer to

c a concentration of 10 mgl Three grades (10 xm 5 xm and 1 xm pore sizes) of filter

paper were used with a Buchner ftmnel to filter aUquots of the precipitated groundwater

Samples of the filtered water were submitted to ENSECO for suspended soUds and turbidity

analysis

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge was coUected during the treatability study The

sludge sample was submitted to the CLP system for PCB and metals analysis so that a

characterization of the sludge could be made and disposal options could be evaluated

1224 Air Stripping Testing Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at three

different air to water ratios to determine the most effective stripping ratio To ensure that

worst case volatUe organic compound concentrations were present in the samples for this

study some modifications were made in how the sample was coUected and treated First

the groundwater was coUected with a baUer to prevent the loss of volatUes AdditionaUy the

water was fUtered under positive pressure foUowing the precipitation step to minimize the c loss of volatUes that would result if the water was filtered using a vacuum pump

An aquarium pump tygon tubing and aeration stone with a glass-fiber fUter cartridge was

used to aerate 1-Uter aUquots of precipitated and filtered groundwater The aeration flow

rate was caUbrated by filling a graduated cylinder with air that had been filled with tap water

and inverted in a water bath The air was diffused at 375 missec into 1-Uter aUquots of

groundwater and the time measured as iUustrated in Table 1-6 The aerated groundwater was

submitted to ENSECO for volatUe organics analysis

1225 Carbon Adsorption Testing The effectiveness of activated carbon for the removal

of organic compounds in the groundwater at the site was evaluated The carbon used was

the powdered activated 325 mesh carbon suppUed by Calgon Corporation The groundwater

samples used for this investigation were obtained and filtered as described in the air stripping

15 c

c

c

TABLE 1-6 AERATION TEST OPERATIONS

Air to Water Ratio Volume Volume of by Volume of Water Air Reqd Min of Aeration

251 1000 ml 25000 ml 111 501 1000 ml 50000 ml 222 751 1000 ml 75000 ml 333

section of this report to minimize the loss of volatUes A total of twelve samples were mn

during this investigation The necessity of air stripping was investigated by comparing the

resuUs from four samples that were air stripped to seven samples that were treated identicaUy

with the exception of air stripping AU samples for the air stripping comparison went

through the precipitation filtration and carbon adsorption processes AdditionaUy one

sample was prepared with no carbon added to serve as an untreated sample The samples are

summarized in Table 1-7 Each groundwater sample was prepared and mixed with a

predetermined dose of Calgon powdered 325 mesh activated carbon and placed m an open

Erlenmyer flask on a shaker table for a two-hour time period at 180 rpm A rotary shaker

table capable of accommodating twelve (12)-1000 ml Erlenmyer flasks was used Effluent

was fUtered with a barrel filter using a glass-fiber pre-fUter and a Whatman 45 micron

membrane The effluent clear and odorless in aU cases was added to sample containers

preserved and packed for shipment to CLP laboratories Since the shaker table could

accommodate 12 flasks a total of approximately 4 gaUons of effluent was generated during

each mn Several mns were performed to generate adequate quantities of sample for

analysis accordmg to Table 1-7 Groundwater was simUarly prepared for submittal to

Aquatec Lab in Burlington Vermont for chronic toxicity testing Three (3) shipments of

approximately 2 gaUons each were made

r 16

C) o o TABLE 1-7 CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation Filtration Aeration amp Carbon

AC-1 05 V SV MET 3400 3 1067 054 AC-2 20 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 22 AC-3 50 V SV MET 3400 3 1133 57 AC-4 100 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 110 AC-5 Trip Blank 0 V

Precipitation Filtration amp Carbon

C-0 0 V 500 1 500 0

C-1 05 V SV MET 3200 3 1067 053

c-2 10 V PCB 2200 2 1100 11

C-3 20 V SV CT 29000 24 1250 25

C-4 50 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 55

C-17 70 V MET 1200 1 1200 70

C-18 100 V SV 2200 2 1100 110

C-13 Treatability Blank 0 V PCB 2200 0 0 0

C-20 Trip Blank 0 V 0

C-10 Duplicate of C-1 05 SV 2000 2 1000 05

C-1 05 (MSMSD) 500 1 500 025

C-11 Duplicate of C-1 05 MET 1000 1 1000 05

C-20 Duplicate of C-2 10 V PCB (MSMSD)

4400 4 1100 11

C-16 Duplicate of C-4 50 PCB 2000 2 1000 50

C-6 0 PCB 2000 2 1000 0

17

o o n TABLE 1-7 (Continued) CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation amp Filtration

PPF-1 V SV MET PCB 2000 2 1000 0

Sludge

Sludge-1 0 MET PCB 0

V = VolatUe organics SV = Semivolatile organics MET = Metals PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls CT = Chronic toxicity MSMSD = Matrix spikematrix spike dup D = DupUcate TB = Trip blank PPF = Precipitated and pressure filtered

(to minimize volatUes loss as opposed to vacuum filtration)

18

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

InitiaUy the effects of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was investigated Tests c were conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 with sodium hydroxide which had the best

settling characteristics based on visual observation and turbidity measurement Each polymer

was then tested at pH = 100 to evaluate Us effectiveness under optimum pH conditions

A formula of polymer and coagulant addition was developed based on visual observations

suspended soUds and turbidity analyses performed on each sample generated during the

investigation The anionic polymer effectively flocculated the existing smaU suspended

particles and the addkion of cationic coagulant removed iron and color when the pH was

raised to 100

Jar Testing Five jar tests were performed using the polymer and coagulants determined to

be effective during preliminary testing Jar tests 1 and 4 were conducted as dupUcates at

ph 10 Jar test 2 was conducted at pH 9 jar test 3 was conducted at pH 8 and jar test 5 was

conducted at pH 10 On each occasion prior to beginning the jar test the raw groundwater

was brought tol5deg-17degCina warm water bath The temperature was held constant to c eliminate the effects of temperature on reaction rates and solubUity

The foUowing is a description of activities conducted during the jar tests fti through 4 See

Figure 1-1 for details Four samples were evaluated during each jar test For each jar test

four 15 Uter beakers were fiUed with 1 Uter of raw groundwater The beakers were placed

on the stirrer platform and the paddles were lowered into the sample The jar stirrer was

operated at 80 revolutions per minute (rpm) The pH was then adjusted to the desired value

(pH = 10 9 8 10 for Tests 1 2 3 4) with a lime slurry in two samples and with a

sodium hydroxide solution (25) in the remaining two samples Lime was added to

investigate its effects on the precipitate and to evaluate its effectiveness in pH adjustment

The cationic coagulant was then added to each sample untU the concentration in solution was

30 mgL The solution was stirred at 80 rpm for 2 minutes to ensure complete mixing The

polymer was then added to one sample pH adjusted with sodium hydroxide and one sample

pH adjusted with lime Mixing continued for two minutes Next the solution was stirred

13 c

slowly orflocculated for five minutes at 20 rpm FinaUy the solutions were aUowed to

c settle for 10 minutes Visual observations were recorded and samples were submitted for

suspended soUds turbidity and metals analyses

Jar test 5 was performed to assess the removal of manganese and aluminum by preaeration

and permanganate additions (see Figure 1-1) Because no significant benefit was observed in

the previous tests when lime was used instead of sodium hydroxide sodium hydroxide was

used to adjust the pH in aU four samples to a pH of 100 in jar test 5 Only sodium

hydroxide was added to the groundwater in the first jar to determine the removal of

manganese and aluminum attributable to the formation of an insoluble salt at high pH

Sodium hydroxide and polymer were added to the second jar to evaluate the effectiveness of

the polymer Sodium hydroxide polymer and coagulant were added to sample 4 The

supemate from sample 4 was then fUtered This was performed to determine if the required

removal efficiencies could be achieved by chemical precipitation and filtration

Permanganate was added to sample 3 in addition to sodium hydroxide coagulant and

polymer to determine if the manganese and aluminum present could be chemicaUy oxidized c to a less soluble state which would enhance the efficiency of fUtration The supemate was

then siphoned off using clean tygon tubing and a syringe into the sample containers

Samples were submitted for metals suspended soUds and turbidity as illustrated on

Figure 1-1

1223 Filtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was perfonned to determine the

optimum pore size of filter media that could effectively remove the suspended soUds in the

precipitated groundwater The determination of the removal efficiency for each filter was

based on the concentration of suspended soUds and turbidity of the filtered water The time

required to filter the groundwater was also evaluated

Prior to filtration the metals in the groundwater were precipitated and coagulent and polymer

were added using the optimum conditions developed during the precipitation study The

optimum conditions consisted of pH adjustment to 10 with sodium hydroxide addition of

14 c

coagulent CP-12 to a concentration of one percent and addition of Drewfloc 2270 polymer to

c a concentration of 10 mgl Three grades (10 xm 5 xm and 1 xm pore sizes) of filter

paper were used with a Buchner ftmnel to filter aUquots of the precipitated groundwater

Samples of the filtered water were submitted to ENSECO for suspended soUds and turbidity

analysis

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge was coUected during the treatability study The

sludge sample was submitted to the CLP system for PCB and metals analysis so that a

characterization of the sludge could be made and disposal options could be evaluated

1224 Air Stripping Testing Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at three

different air to water ratios to determine the most effective stripping ratio To ensure that

worst case volatUe organic compound concentrations were present in the samples for this

study some modifications were made in how the sample was coUected and treated First

the groundwater was coUected with a baUer to prevent the loss of volatUes AdditionaUy the

water was fUtered under positive pressure foUowing the precipitation step to minimize the c loss of volatUes that would result if the water was filtered using a vacuum pump

An aquarium pump tygon tubing and aeration stone with a glass-fiber fUter cartridge was

used to aerate 1-Uter aUquots of precipitated and filtered groundwater The aeration flow

rate was caUbrated by filling a graduated cylinder with air that had been filled with tap water

and inverted in a water bath The air was diffused at 375 missec into 1-Uter aUquots of

groundwater and the time measured as iUustrated in Table 1-6 The aerated groundwater was

submitted to ENSECO for volatUe organics analysis

1225 Carbon Adsorption Testing The effectiveness of activated carbon for the removal

of organic compounds in the groundwater at the site was evaluated The carbon used was

the powdered activated 325 mesh carbon suppUed by Calgon Corporation The groundwater

samples used for this investigation were obtained and filtered as described in the air stripping

15 c

c

c

TABLE 1-6 AERATION TEST OPERATIONS

Air to Water Ratio Volume Volume of by Volume of Water Air Reqd Min of Aeration

251 1000 ml 25000 ml 111 501 1000 ml 50000 ml 222 751 1000 ml 75000 ml 333

section of this report to minimize the loss of volatUes A total of twelve samples were mn

during this investigation The necessity of air stripping was investigated by comparing the

resuUs from four samples that were air stripped to seven samples that were treated identicaUy

with the exception of air stripping AU samples for the air stripping comparison went

through the precipitation filtration and carbon adsorption processes AdditionaUy one

sample was prepared with no carbon added to serve as an untreated sample The samples are

summarized in Table 1-7 Each groundwater sample was prepared and mixed with a

predetermined dose of Calgon powdered 325 mesh activated carbon and placed m an open

Erlenmyer flask on a shaker table for a two-hour time period at 180 rpm A rotary shaker

table capable of accommodating twelve (12)-1000 ml Erlenmyer flasks was used Effluent

was fUtered with a barrel filter using a glass-fiber pre-fUter and a Whatman 45 micron

membrane The effluent clear and odorless in aU cases was added to sample containers

preserved and packed for shipment to CLP laboratories Since the shaker table could

accommodate 12 flasks a total of approximately 4 gaUons of effluent was generated during

each mn Several mns were performed to generate adequate quantities of sample for

analysis accordmg to Table 1-7 Groundwater was simUarly prepared for submittal to

Aquatec Lab in Burlington Vermont for chronic toxicity testing Three (3) shipments of

approximately 2 gaUons each were made

r 16

C) o o TABLE 1-7 CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation Filtration Aeration amp Carbon

AC-1 05 V SV MET 3400 3 1067 054 AC-2 20 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 22 AC-3 50 V SV MET 3400 3 1133 57 AC-4 100 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 110 AC-5 Trip Blank 0 V

Precipitation Filtration amp Carbon

C-0 0 V 500 1 500 0

C-1 05 V SV MET 3200 3 1067 053

c-2 10 V PCB 2200 2 1100 11

C-3 20 V SV CT 29000 24 1250 25

C-4 50 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 55

C-17 70 V MET 1200 1 1200 70

C-18 100 V SV 2200 2 1100 110

C-13 Treatability Blank 0 V PCB 2200 0 0 0

C-20 Trip Blank 0 V 0

C-10 Duplicate of C-1 05 SV 2000 2 1000 05

C-1 05 (MSMSD) 500 1 500 025

C-11 Duplicate of C-1 05 MET 1000 1 1000 05

C-20 Duplicate of C-2 10 V PCB (MSMSD)

4400 4 1100 11

C-16 Duplicate of C-4 50 PCB 2000 2 1000 50

C-6 0 PCB 2000 2 1000 0

17

o o n TABLE 1-7 (Continued) CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation amp Filtration

PPF-1 V SV MET PCB 2000 2 1000 0

Sludge

Sludge-1 0 MET PCB 0

V = VolatUe organics SV = Semivolatile organics MET = Metals PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls CT = Chronic toxicity MSMSD = Matrix spikematrix spike dup D = DupUcate TB = Trip blank PPF = Precipitated and pressure filtered

(to minimize volatUes loss as opposed to vacuum filtration)

18

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

slowly orflocculated for five minutes at 20 rpm FinaUy the solutions were aUowed to

c settle for 10 minutes Visual observations were recorded and samples were submitted for

suspended soUds turbidity and metals analyses

Jar test 5 was performed to assess the removal of manganese and aluminum by preaeration

and permanganate additions (see Figure 1-1) Because no significant benefit was observed in

the previous tests when lime was used instead of sodium hydroxide sodium hydroxide was

used to adjust the pH in aU four samples to a pH of 100 in jar test 5 Only sodium

hydroxide was added to the groundwater in the first jar to determine the removal of

manganese and aluminum attributable to the formation of an insoluble salt at high pH

Sodium hydroxide and polymer were added to the second jar to evaluate the effectiveness of

the polymer Sodium hydroxide polymer and coagulant were added to sample 4 The

supemate from sample 4 was then fUtered This was performed to determine if the required

removal efficiencies could be achieved by chemical precipitation and filtration

Permanganate was added to sample 3 in addition to sodium hydroxide coagulant and

polymer to determine if the manganese and aluminum present could be chemicaUy oxidized c to a less soluble state which would enhance the efficiency of fUtration The supemate was

then siphoned off using clean tygon tubing and a syringe into the sample containers

Samples were submitted for metals suspended soUds and turbidity as illustrated on

Figure 1-1

1223 Filtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was perfonned to determine the

optimum pore size of filter media that could effectively remove the suspended soUds in the

precipitated groundwater The determination of the removal efficiency for each filter was

based on the concentration of suspended soUds and turbidity of the filtered water The time

required to filter the groundwater was also evaluated

Prior to filtration the metals in the groundwater were precipitated and coagulent and polymer

were added using the optimum conditions developed during the precipitation study The

optimum conditions consisted of pH adjustment to 10 with sodium hydroxide addition of

14 c

coagulent CP-12 to a concentration of one percent and addition of Drewfloc 2270 polymer to

c a concentration of 10 mgl Three grades (10 xm 5 xm and 1 xm pore sizes) of filter

paper were used with a Buchner ftmnel to filter aUquots of the precipitated groundwater

Samples of the filtered water were submitted to ENSECO for suspended soUds and turbidity

analysis

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge was coUected during the treatability study The

sludge sample was submitted to the CLP system for PCB and metals analysis so that a

characterization of the sludge could be made and disposal options could be evaluated

1224 Air Stripping Testing Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at three

different air to water ratios to determine the most effective stripping ratio To ensure that

worst case volatUe organic compound concentrations were present in the samples for this

study some modifications were made in how the sample was coUected and treated First

the groundwater was coUected with a baUer to prevent the loss of volatUes AdditionaUy the

water was fUtered under positive pressure foUowing the precipitation step to minimize the c loss of volatUes that would result if the water was filtered using a vacuum pump

An aquarium pump tygon tubing and aeration stone with a glass-fiber fUter cartridge was

used to aerate 1-Uter aUquots of precipitated and filtered groundwater The aeration flow

rate was caUbrated by filling a graduated cylinder with air that had been filled with tap water

and inverted in a water bath The air was diffused at 375 missec into 1-Uter aUquots of

groundwater and the time measured as iUustrated in Table 1-6 The aerated groundwater was

submitted to ENSECO for volatUe organics analysis

1225 Carbon Adsorption Testing The effectiveness of activated carbon for the removal

of organic compounds in the groundwater at the site was evaluated The carbon used was

the powdered activated 325 mesh carbon suppUed by Calgon Corporation The groundwater

samples used for this investigation were obtained and filtered as described in the air stripping

15 c

c

c

TABLE 1-6 AERATION TEST OPERATIONS

Air to Water Ratio Volume Volume of by Volume of Water Air Reqd Min of Aeration

251 1000 ml 25000 ml 111 501 1000 ml 50000 ml 222 751 1000 ml 75000 ml 333

section of this report to minimize the loss of volatUes A total of twelve samples were mn

during this investigation The necessity of air stripping was investigated by comparing the

resuUs from four samples that were air stripped to seven samples that were treated identicaUy

with the exception of air stripping AU samples for the air stripping comparison went

through the precipitation filtration and carbon adsorption processes AdditionaUy one

sample was prepared with no carbon added to serve as an untreated sample The samples are

summarized in Table 1-7 Each groundwater sample was prepared and mixed with a

predetermined dose of Calgon powdered 325 mesh activated carbon and placed m an open

Erlenmyer flask on a shaker table for a two-hour time period at 180 rpm A rotary shaker

table capable of accommodating twelve (12)-1000 ml Erlenmyer flasks was used Effluent

was fUtered with a barrel filter using a glass-fiber pre-fUter and a Whatman 45 micron

membrane The effluent clear and odorless in aU cases was added to sample containers

preserved and packed for shipment to CLP laboratories Since the shaker table could

accommodate 12 flasks a total of approximately 4 gaUons of effluent was generated during

each mn Several mns were performed to generate adequate quantities of sample for

analysis accordmg to Table 1-7 Groundwater was simUarly prepared for submittal to

Aquatec Lab in Burlington Vermont for chronic toxicity testing Three (3) shipments of

approximately 2 gaUons each were made

r 16

C) o o TABLE 1-7 CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation Filtration Aeration amp Carbon

AC-1 05 V SV MET 3400 3 1067 054 AC-2 20 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 22 AC-3 50 V SV MET 3400 3 1133 57 AC-4 100 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 110 AC-5 Trip Blank 0 V

Precipitation Filtration amp Carbon

C-0 0 V 500 1 500 0

C-1 05 V SV MET 3200 3 1067 053

c-2 10 V PCB 2200 2 1100 11

C-3 20 V SV CT 29000 24 1250 25

C-4 50 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 55

C-17 70 V MET 1200 1 1200 70

C-18 100 V SV 2200 2 1100 110

C-13 Treatability Blank 0 V PCB 2200 0 0 0

C-20 Trip Blank 0 V 0

C-10 Duplicate of C-1 05 SV 2000 2 1000 05

C-1 05 (MSMSD) 500 1 500 025

C-11 Duplicate of C-1 05 MET 1000 1 1000 05

C-20 Duplicate of C-2 10 V PCB (MSMSD)

4400 4 1100 11

C-16 Duplicate of C-4 50 PCB 2000 2 1000 50

C-6 0 PCB 2000 2 1000 0

17

o o n TABLE 1-7 (Continued) CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation amp Filtration

PPF-1 V SV MET PCB 2000 2 1000 0

Sludge

Sludge-1 0 MET PCB 0

V = VolatUe organics SV = Semivolatile organics MET = Metals PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls CT = Chronic toxicity MSMSD = Matrix spikematrix spike dup D = DupUcate TB = Trip blank PPF = Precipitated and pressure filtered

(to minimize volatUes loss as opposed to vacuum filtration)

18

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

coagulent CP-12 to a concentration of one percent and addition of Drewfloc 2270 polymer to

c a concentration of 10 mgl Three grades (10 xm 5 xm and 1 xm pore sizes) of filter

paper were used with a Buchner ftmnel to filter aUquots of the precipitated groundwater

Samples of the filtered water were submitted to ENSECO for suspended soUds and turbidity

analysis

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge was coUected during the treatability study The

sludge sample was submitted to the CLP system for PCB and metals analysis so that a

characterization of the sludge could be made and disposal options could be evaluated

1224 Air Stripping Testing Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at three

different air to water ratios to determine the most effective stripping ratio To ensure that

worst case volatUe organic compound concentrations were present in the samples for this

study some modifications were made in how the sample was coUected and treated First

the groundwater was coUected with a baUer to prevent the loss of volatUes AdditionaUy the

water was fUtered under positive pressure foUowing the precipitation step to minimize the c loss of volatUes that would result if the water was filtered using a vacuum pump

An aquarium pump tygon tubing and aeration stone with a glass-fiber fUter cartridge was

used to aerate 1-Uter aUquots of precipitated and filtered groundwater The aeration flow

rate was caUbrated by filling a graduated cylinder with air that had been filled with tap water

and inverted in a water bath The air was diffused at 375 missec into 1-Uter aUquots of

groundwater and the time measured as iUustrated in Table 1-6 The aerated groundwater was

submitted to ENSECO for volatUe organics analysis

1225 Carbon Adsorption Testing The effectiveness of activated carbon for the removal

of organic compounds in the groundwater at the site was evaluated The carbon used was

the powdered activated 325 mesh carbon suppUed by Calgon Corporation The groundwater

samples used for this investigation were obtained and filtered as described in the air stripping

15 c

c

c

TABLE 1-6 AERATION TEST OPERATIONS

Air to Water Ratio Volume Volume of by Volume of Water Air Reqd Min of Aeration

251 1000 ml 25000 ml 111 501 1000 ml 50000 ml 222 751 1000 ml 75000 ml 333

section of this report to minimize the loss of volatUes A total of twelve samples were mn

during this investigation The necessity of air stripping was investigated by comparing the

resuUs from four samples that were air stripped to seven samples that were treated identicaUy

with the exception of air stripping AU samples for the air stripping comparison went

through the precipitation filtration and carbon adsorption processes AdditionaUy one

sample was prepared with no carbon added to serve as an untreated sample The samples are

summarized in Table 1-7 Each groundwater sample was prepared and mixed with a

predetermined dose of Calgon powdered 325 mesh activated carbon and placed m an open

Erlenmyer flask on a shaker table for a two-hour time period at 180 rpm A rotary shaker

table capable of accommodating twelve (12)-1000 ml Erlenmyer flasks was used Effluent

was fUtered with a barrel filter using a glass-fiber pre-fUter and a Whatman 45 micron

membrane The effluent clear and odorless in aU cases was added to sample containers

preserved and packed for shipment to CLP laboratories Since the shaker table could

accommodate 12 flasks a total of approximately 4 gaUons of effluent was generated during

each mn Several mns were performed to generate adequate quantities of sample for

analysis accordmg to Table 1-7 Groundwater was simUarly prepared for submittal to

Aquatec Lab in Burlington Vermont for chronic toxicity testing Three (3) shipments of

approximately 2 gaUons each were made

r 16

C) o o TABLE 1-7 CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation Filtration Aeration amp Carbon

AC-1 05 V SV MET 3400 3 1067 054 AC-2 20 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 22 AC-3 50 V SV MET 3400 3 1133 57 AC-4 100 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 110 AC-5 Trip Blank 0 V

Precipitation Filtration amp Carbon

C-0 0 V 500 1 500 0

C-1 05 V SV MET 3200 3 1067 053

c-2 10 V PCB 2200 2 1100 11

C-3 20 V SV CT 29000 24 1250 25

C-4 50 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 55

C-17 70 V MET 1200 1 1200 70

C-18 100 V SV 2200 2 1100 110

C-13 Treatability Blank 0 V PCB 2200 0 0 0

C-20 Trip Blank 0 V 0

C-10 Duplicate of C-1 05 SV 2000 2 1000 05

C-1 05 (MSMSD) 500 1 500 025

C-11 Duplicate of C-1 05 MET 1000 1 1000 05

C-20 Duplicate of C-2 10 V PCB (MSMSD)

4400 4 1100 11

C-16 Duplicate of C-4 50 PCB 2000 2 1000 50

C-6 0 PCB 2000 2 1000 0

17

o o n TABLE 1-7 (Continued) CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation amp Filtration

PPF-1 V SV MET PCB 2000 2 1000 0

Sludge

Sludge-1 0 MET PCB 0

V = VolatUe organics SV = Semivolatile organics MET = Metals PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls CT = Chronic toxicity MSMSD = Matrix spikematrix spike dup D = DupUcate TB = Trip blank PPF = Precipitated and pressure filtered

(to minimize volatUes loss as opposed to vacuum filtration)

18

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

c

c

TABLE 1-6 AERATION TEST OPERATIONS

Air to Water Ratio Volume Volume of by Volume of Water Air Reqd Min of Aeration

251 1000 ml 25000 ml 111 501 1000 ml 50000 ml 222 751 1000 ml 75000 ml 333

section of this report to minimize the loss of volatUes A total of twelve samples were mn

during this investigation The necessity of air stripping was investigated by comparing the

resuUs from four samples that were air stripped to seven samples that were treated identicaUy

with the exception of air stripping AU samples for the air stripping comparison went

through the precipitation filtration and carbon adsorption processes AdditionaUy one

sample was prepared with no carbon added to serve as an untreated sample The samples are

summarized in Table 1-7 Each groundwater sample was prepared and mixed with a

predetermined dose of Calgon powdered 325 mesh activated carbon and placed m an open

Erlenmyer flask on a shaker table for a two-hour time period at 180 rpm A rotary shaker

table capable of accommodating twelve (12)-1000 ml Erlenmyer flasks was used Effluent

was fUtered with a barrel filter using a glass-fiber pre-fUter and a Whatman 45 micron

membrane The effluent clear and odorless in aU cases was added to sample containers

preserved and packed for shipment to CLP laboratories Since the shaker table could

accommodate 12 flasks a total of approximately 4 gaUons of effluent was generated during

each mn Several mns were performed to generate adequate quantities of sample for

analysis accordmg to Table 1-7 Groundwater was simUarly prepared for submittal to

Aquatec Lab in Burlington Vermont for chronic toxicity testing Three (3) shipments of

approximately 2 gaUons each were made

r 16

C) o o TABLE 1-7 CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation Filtration Aeration amp Carbon

AC-1 05 V SV MET 3400 3 1067 054 AC-2 20 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 22 AC-3 50 V SV MET 3400 3 1133 57 AC-4 100 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 110 AC-5 Trip Blank 0 V

Precipitation Filtration amp Carbon

C-0 0 V 500 1 500 0

C-1 05 V SV MET 3200 3 1067 053

c-2 10 V PCB 2200 2 1100 11

C-3 20 V SV CT 29000 24 1250 25

C-4 50 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 55

C-17 70 V MET 1200 1 1200 70

C-18 100 V SV 2200 2 1100 110

C-13 Treatability Blank 0 V PCB 2200 0 0 0

C-20 Trip Blank 0 V 0

C-10 Duplicate of C-1 05 SV 2000 2 1000 05

C-1 05 (MSMSD) 500 1 500 025

C-11 Duplicate of C-1 05 MET 1000 1 1000 05

C-20 Duplicate of C-2 10 V PCB (MSMSD)

4400 4 1100 11

C-16 Duplicate of C-4 50 PCB 2000 2 1000 50

C-6 0 PCB 2000 2 1000 0

17

o o n TABLE 1-7 (Continued) CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation amp Filtration

PPF-1 V SV MET PCB 2000 2 1000 0

Sludge

Sludge-1 0 MET PCB 0

V = VolatUe organics SV = Semivolatile organics MET = Metals PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls CT = Chronic toxicity MSMSD = Matrix spikematrix spike dup D = DupUcate TB = Trip blank PPF = Precipitated and pressure filtered

(to minimize volatUes loss as opposed to vacuum filtration)

18

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

C) o o TABLE 1-7 CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation Filtration Aeration amp Carbon

AC-1 05 V SV MET 3400 3 1067 054 AC-2 20 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 22 AC-3 50 V SV MET 3400 3 1133 57 AC-4 100 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 110 AC-5 Trip Blank 0 V

Precipitation Filtration amp Carbon

C-0 0 V 500 1 500 0

C-1 05 V SV MET 3200 3 1067 053

c-2 10 V PCB 2200 2 1100 11

C-3 20 V SV CT 29000 24 1250 25

C-4 50 V SV PCB 4400 4 1100 55

C-17 70 V MET 1200 1 1200 70

C-18 100 V SV 2200 2 1100 110

C-13 Treatability Blank 0 V PCB 2200 0 0 0

C-20 Trip Blank 0 V 0

C-10 Duplicate of C-1 05 SV 2000 2 1000 05

C-1 05 (MSMSD) 500 1 500 025

C-11 Duplicate of C-1 05 MET 1000 1 1000 05

C-20 Duplicate of C-2 10 V PCB (MSMSD)

4400 4 1100 11

C-16 Duplicate of C-4 50 PCB 2000 2 1000 50

C-6 0 PCB 2000 2 1000 0

17

o o n TABLE 1-7 (Continued) CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation amp Filtration

PPF-1 V SV MET PCB 2000 2 1000 0

Sludge

Sludge-1 0 MET PCB 0

V = VolatUe organics SV = Semivolatile organics MET = Metals PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls CT = Chronic toxicity MSMSD = Matrix spikematrix spike dup D = DupUcate TB = Trip blank PPF = Precipitated and pressure filtered

(to minimize volatUes loss as opposed to vacuum filtration)

18

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

o o n TABLE 1-7 (Continued) CLP TREATABILITY STUDY SAMPLING SUMMARY

Dose g of Carbon Required of mis in gs Carbon

Sample ID 1000 ml of GW Analysis Volume mis Flasks Flasks in each

Precipitation amp Filtration

PPF-1 V SV MET PCB 2000 2 1000 0

Sludge

Sludge-1 0 MET PCB 0

V = VolatUe organics SV = Semivolatile organics MET = Metals PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls CT = Chronic toxicity MSMSD = Matrix spikematrix spike dup D = DupUcate TB = Trip blank PPF = Precipitated and pressure filtered

(to minimize volatUes loss as opposed to vacuum filtration)

18

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

c

c

123 Results

1231 Precipitation Testing

Polymer Testing Preliminary polymer and coagulant testing was conducted to determine

the type of polymer and coagulant that could be employed to treat groundwater from the site

The Drewfloc polymer and the Drew CP-12 cationic coagulant were chosen as the most

effective types InitiaUy the effect of varying the pH of the groundwater sample was

investigated The resuUs of tests conducted at pH values of 80 90 and 100 are presented

on Table 1-8 As the pH value was raised the quaUty of the floe improved The sample

raised to a pH level of 100 with sodium hydroxide exhibited the best settling characteristics

based on the color turbidity soUds and the quaUty of the floe

The effects of varying the polymer dose was then investigated at pH=100 The cationic

coagulant added to a concentration of 30 ppm after pH adjustment and prior to polymer

addition produced the clearest supemate based on color turbidity and suspended soUds

results Table 1-8 also summarizes the results from this investigation

Jar Testing Four jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical

precipitation for the removal of metals in groundwater from weU MW-IA The analytical

results from the jar test are presented in Table 1-9 The greatest metal reductions occurred

when the pH was 100 Samples for which the pH was adjusted with lime showed better

removal of barium manganese and sodium concentrations than those samples for which the

pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide Samples for which the pH was adjusted with

sodium hydroxide showed greater declines in the concentrations of calcium and magnesium

No significant effect was observed on the removal of cobalt iron lead aluminum potassium

and zinc when lime or sodium hydroxide was used to raise the pH The observation that

samples for which the pH was adjusted with sodium hydroxide had elevated concentrations of

19 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

c TABLE 1-8 PRELIMINARY POLYMER TESTING RESULTS

Description of Supemate

Procedure pH ColorSoUds

mgl Turbidity

NTU Floe SettleabUity

Varymg pH

Raw Groundwater pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH pH adjustedNaOH

62 80 90 100

YeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrownYeUowbrown

450 gt50 gt gt 5 0 gt gt50

58 SUght mst pin floe medium

gt medium

None Slow Faster Fastest

Varying polymer dose pH adjustment wNaOH

pH adjustedno polymer

100 YeUowbrown gt gt50 gt medium Fast

Above wpolymerat 1 ppm

100 Light yeUow lt 10 35 large 18 Fast

c Polymer at 5 ppm 100

Polymer at 1 ppm 100 wcoag 30 ppm

Light yeUow

Very Ught

lt 10

lt 10 yeUow

32

30

Large 18

Targe 18

Fast

Fast

n 20

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

o o n TABLE 1-9 F U L L - S C A L E TREATABILITY STUDY JAR T E S T R E S U L T S

Results in mgL

SAMPLE ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMW JAiSiiii iiiJTililiiiiiiiiiiii iiiJTil^iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiTIi3iiiiiiiii iiiii^ii^li^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiri^iiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiimii iiiiiJT4^iiiiiiiiiiiiiinP4i4iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiJT2iiliiiiiiiiiiiiT2^iiiiiii |i|S^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilM ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJlt iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii=iiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiM ii^iiiiiiiiiiiii6iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijqiiiiii mmsectlsectMimamp0^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBlaquoiltgti iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii i-liMiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i iiiiiiiiiii iiitoiisiiiiii iiSisi^N^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJiiKiiiKisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiRiiiiiiiiiilliiiliiii iiiiiiiiiii)i|ilaquoiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviwitiyii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Craquoigulaiaitii PolyCoag iiiiltCltraquoguiiSiiiiiiiiii PolyCoag Coagulant PolyCoag Coagulant

ANALYTES

Aluminuin 349 032 034 042 045 043 042 065 065 038 034

Barium 0247 0031 0033 0070 0070 0036 0047 0079 0079 0073 0073

Calcium 308 354 3680 2440 240 366 454 251 254 547 548

Cobalt 00331 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U OOl U 001 U 001 U 001 U 001 U

Iron 846 01 U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OI U OIO Oll 014

Lead 00253 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U

Magnesium 116 45 45 42 41 47 48 43 44 46 46

Manganese 481 030 034 15 14 028 059 16 16 36 37

Potassium 465 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 UNJ

Sodium 123 121 120 711 723 144 144 779 812 113 113

Zinc 0488 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U 002 U

E S A M P L E ID iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiJT2i3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^T2-4iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiJ^alliiiiiiiiiiiii iii^Ta^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiit3|3iiiiiiiiiiiii iiilT3Tr4iiiiiiiiiiiiiii rrs-i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiJTSl iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiitJiJiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiWs-4iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiJT5r-5ii|iiiiiiii

^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipHiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiiiiiii-Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiraquoiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiQ iii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOiiiiiiiiiiiiis

iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiBSsiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilgtHiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNaOHiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii)iliimiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiSiiriiiisiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiNiliiiiiiiiii iiiii iNapHiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifloiiiiiiiii iiii^iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii NiitQHiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiWftOHiiiiiiii wmm iii^iiiiiiiisiiiiiiiAli|ilii iiiiiiiiiiixiiiiiEal3i iltgtoi PolyCoag C o a g u l a n t PolyCoag Coagulant iiiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii)|sihyii^iiiiiiii PolyCoag PolyCoag iiiPoij^iii^il ANALYTES Aerated KMn04

Aluminum 050 040 097 074 091 100 011 01 u 023 013 061

Barium 0073 0072 010 010 010 010 NA NA NA NA NA Calcium 247 247 571 574 273 277 NA NA NA NA NA Cobalt 001 U 001 U 0017 0018 0017 0019 NA NA NA NA NA Iron 01 U Ol U 016 023 016 043 NA NA NA NA NA Lead 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U 0005 U NA NA NA NA NA Magnesium 44 44 50 51 50 50 NA NA NA NA NA Manganese 35 33 43 43 44 44 063 086 099 094 14 Potassium 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U NA NA NA NA NA Sodium 423 477 170 169 502 508 NA NA NA NA NA Zinc 002 U 002 U 0082 011 015 016 NA NA NA NA NA

Notes Only metals detected in untreated groundwater from MWIA are presented NA = Not Analyzed

U = undetected at specified detection limit JTI = Jar Test 1

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

c

c

sodium in the treated water was expected This is because sodium is a component of sodium

hydroxide Similarly the elevated concentrations of calcium observed in samples for

whichthe pH was adjusted wUh lime are due to the calcium component in lime Jar test 5

was conducted to assess the effect that precipitation and chemical oxidation had on the

removal of manganese and aluminum The results of this investigation are also presented in

Table 1-9 The results indicate that greater reductions of aluminum and manganese cannot

be achieved with aeration or by the addition of a chemical oxidant such as permanganate

A sample of the metal hydroxide sludge a residual that wiU be generated during the

groundwater treatment was analyzed for metals and PCBs This sample of sludge was

generated by treating contaminated groundwater with precipitation and filtration using the

optimum treatment parameters The metals results indicate that the sludge would not be

considered hazardous under RCRA using the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

(TCLP) A TCLP was not performed on the sludge however based on 1) the concentration

of the metals in the sludge 2) assuming a 100 leachability and 3) incoiporating a 20-fold

dUution for a soUd matrix analyzed by TCLP this sludge would not be considered hazardous

under RCRA The PCB analysis of the sludge showed that Aroclor 1254 was the only

detected PCB at a concentration of 31 mgkg The TSCA limit for PCBs in waste is

50 mgkg indicating that this sludge would not be hazardous under TSCA The results for

this sludge represent a preliminary characterization and once the fuU scale treatment system

is on line the sludge analysis wiU need further testing to confirm these preliminary results

and to make a further assessment of the disposal options The analytical resuUs for the

sludge are presented in Table 1-10

1232 FUtration Testing A bench-scale filtration study was performed to determine the

optimum particle retention grade or mesh of filter media that could effectively remove the

suspended soUds in the precipitated groundwater The results of the analysis on the fUtrate

are presented in Table 1-11

n 22

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

c

c

TABLE 1-10 PRECIPITATED METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE RESULTS Results in mgkg

i||ipiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiili|ii^^^ TCLP or TSCA L i n i l t s i Tfesi-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii^iiiiiiSvHiij^ in Solid Matrices ii iiiiS WM3KT2S

METALS

Aluminum Antimony Arsemc Barium Beryllium

Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc

PCBs

Aroclor 1254

41100 231 195 346 5767

9120 338

25 114

39000 694 5260 2730

03313

04

8960 08

561446

31

U U

U

J

U U U R

U U J

J

NC NC 100

2000 NC 20

NC 100 NC NC NC 100 NC NC

4 NC 20

100 NC NC NC NC

50

Notes = TCLP Limits incorporated a 1 to 20 dilution factor for solid matrices Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected The remaining six Aroclors

were nondetect at a quantitation limit of 36 mgkg NC = No criteria exists for this compound U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

L J = Estimated value due to validation criteria R = The result is rejected

23

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

c

c

TABLE 1-11 FILTRATION STUDY RESULTS

Media Rating Speed Suspended SoUds Turbidity

Raw 45 mgl 578 Course 10 um 200 mls5 sec lt5 mgl 16 NTU Medium 5 um 200 mls7 sec lt5 mgl 19 NTU Fine 1 um 200 mls23 sec lt5 mgl 18 NTU

Since there was virtuaUy no difference in the quaUty of effluents but substantial increase in

time to filter with the fine filter paper the medium 5 micron paper was chosen to prepare

sample for ftirther study

1233 Air Stripping Precipitated fUtered groundwater was aerated at 3 different air to

water ratios to evaluate the effectiveness of air stripping for the removal of volatUe organic

compounds in the groundwater Tables 1-12 and 1-13 shows the analytical results for

groundwater samples obtained from weUs MW-IA and ME-8 respectively No volatUe

organic compounds were detected in samples that were aerated at a 501 air to water ratio

Aeration of precipitated filtered groundwater obtained from weU ME-8 removed aU of the

vinyl chloride at an air to water ratio of 251

1234 Carbon Adsorption The effectiveness of carbon adsorption for the removal of

organic compounds in the groundwater was evaluated The analytical results are presented in

Table 1-14 At the lowest carbon dosage only 1 xg1 of cis-12-dichloroethene and

2 xg1 of trichloroethene remained No site-related volatUe organic compounds were detected

in samples which were treated with higher doses of carbon Toluene and

dibromochloromethane were detected in sample C-4 however these two compounds were

not detected in the raw groundwater and must therefore be a result of lab contamination

24 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

c TABLE 1-12 FULL SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS IN ugL FOR WELL MWIA

li Iilll liiiiiiiiii |||M^||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii PPF-1 WliSii iiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiiiiiiiiiitii Precipitated |iyl^ii|yiiiii||ii i-iiiiit^]^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii | | |iiii|i|i

iiiiiiiiiiiiii andipatcred i ii | | | i | i i i i i i ^ i i | i i i i i | i i | i iiiiiiii | iiil5pi| | | i iii ii WSMBS

VOLATILE ORGANICS

12-Dichloroethene(total) 200 97 87 5 U 5 U

Chloroform 4 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Trichloroethene 860 430 15 5 U 5 U

112-Trichlorocthane 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Tetrachloroethene 5 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U c Total Xylenes 1 25 U 83 U 5 U 5 U

Notes Only volatile organic compounds detected in imtreated groundwater from MWIA are presented U = Undetected at specified detection limit

25

c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

c TABLE 1-13 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AIR STRIPPING RESULTS FOR WELL ME-8 Results in ugL

iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiEiiDi-i^ iiiiililiiiiiiiElsiiii M E - 8 P P F ii i i ME-8PPFA i i-i-iiiiiiiiiiiil iiiiiii P r e c i p i t a t e d A W Ratio

| g sect | | U | D | | | | | | i | --- and Filtered iiiiiiii- 25l^-

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Vinyl Chloride 210 160 10 u

12-Dichloroethene(total) 350 270 5 U

Trichloroethene 670 450 5 U

Notes

Only volatile organic compounds detected in untreated groundwater from ME-8 are presented

U = Undetected at speciiied detection limit

^ shy

26

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

c TABLE 1-14 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY CLP CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS

Results in ugL

liiilliiiiiii iMM^tampizi

febMi^bjti^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liiiiiiiiii iii^iAiiiiil- bullc^iii^iiit|2iiiiiiiii^iiSiii^iii| g--3iiii|iiicili| iiiiiiili Sllllli Wi2z

VOLATILE ORGANIC s

r

Methylene Chloride 10 u 4 U 5 U 5 U 4 U 4 U 2 U 4 U

cis-12-Dichloroethene 200 D 1 U 1 06 J 06 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Chloroform 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 12 J 1 U 1 U

12-Dichloroethane 10 U 2 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 03 J

Carbon Tetrachloride 10 u 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 01 J

Trichloroethene 860 D 1 U 2 06 J 06 J 02 J 1 U 1 U

Toluene 10 U 020 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 007 J 25 1 U

Dibromochloromethane 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14 1 U

Chlorobenzene 5 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Total Xylenes 1 J 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Styrene 10 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 09 J 1 U

124-Trichloroben2ene 2400 D 4 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

123-Trichloroben2ene NA 5 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U ^

SEMIVOLATILE ORG ANICS

Diethylphthalate 10 U 2 J 10 u 10 U 10 u Di-n-butylphthalate 10 U 1 J 10 u 10 U 10 u

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal ate 10 U 10 U 10 u 4 J 2 J

Notes

Only volatile and semivolatile organics detected in any sample are included

No PCBs were detected in any effluent sample at a detection limit of 01 ugL influent was 36 J ugL

C-ID = Duplicate of C-1

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

D = Duplicate

NA = Not Analyzed

= Value is for total 12-Dichlorocthene

i| f|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ti8ili| WSk

3 U 2 u 8 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

04 J 1 U 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

03 J 008 J 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

1 U 1 u 1 U

02 J 1 U 1 U

005 J 1 U 1 U

02 J OI J 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u 1 U 1 U 1 u

10 U

10 u

2 J

27

c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

The effectiveness of combining aeration and carbon adsorption to remove organic c contaminants was also investigated These results are also summarized in Table 1-15 No

organic compounds were detected m any of the samples generated during this investigation

124 Conclusions The results of the groundwater treatability study demonstrate that

treatment consisting of precipitation fUtration air stripping with vapor phase controls and

carbon adsorption appear able to meet cleanup levels estabUshed for the site Figure 1-3 is a

schematic representation of the proposed system The ROD stipulates that treated

groundwater wUl be reinjected to the aquifer onsite in this case MCLs are the cleanup

levels An altemative to be evaluated is discharging the treated groundwater to a surface

water body either Meadow Brook or the Neponset River In this case cleanup levels are

estabUshed as effluent discharge levels Effluent discharge levels are calculated by

multiplying the ambient water quaUty criteria (AWQC) values for each compound by a

dUution factor The dUution factor for the Neponset River is based on a 100-gpm treatment

discharge rate and a Neponset River 7010 of 2020 gpm The dUution factor for Meadow

Brook is 1 since the treatment discharge rate is greater than the flow of the brook therefore

effluent discharge levels for Meadow Brook are set at AWQC

Tables 1-16 through 1-19 compare effluent discharge levels for both the Neponset River and

Meadow Brook to carbon adsorption effluent from the groundwater treatability study

Table 1-16 summarizes the concentration of metals in untreated groundwater the metals

concentrations remaining foUowing precipitation and filtration the metals concentration

foUowing aeration and carbon adsorption the metals concentrations foUowing caition

adsorption only the MCLs and the effluent discharge levels based on discharge to the

Neponset River The only metal effluent concentration which exceeds the MCLs is

aluminum the MCL for aluminum however is a secondary MCL which is nonenforceable

No metals concentrations in the effluent exceed any of the effluent discharge levels

n 28

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

c TABLE 1-15 FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY AERATION AND CARBON ADSORPTION RESULTS Results in ugL

iiiiii|Mpt-HiiDiiii-iiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iii bullbullbull^(6-^1 iiiiii-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^g-2iiiiiiiiiii|i

l | | | ibyNigtii i i i i | i i i i i i i | ivi

VOLATILE ORGANICS

Mediylene Chloride 6 U 4 U Carbon Tetrachloride 1 U 01 J Toluene 02 J 1 u Total Xylenes 1 U 1 u Acetone 5 U 5 U 2-Butanone 5 U 5 U 2-Hexanone 5 U 5 U 4-Methy 1-2-pentanone 5 U 5 U Carbon Disulfide 1 U 1 U

c Notes Only volatile organics detected in any sample are included U = undetected at specified detection limit J = value is estimated due to validation criteria

iiiiiA61iiiiiiiiiiiii

3 U 1 U

02 J 01 J

5 U 5 J 5 U

5 U 1 U

i|AGii[ijiiifii

3 U U

01 J 1 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 U

i^^^iiiiiic|ii[|ili

10

1 u 1 u 1 u 5 U 5 J

5 U 5 U 1 U

29

c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

o o o

o

Gas Phase GAC or Catalytic Oxidation

To ^ Ambient

Air

To Groundwater Recharge or

Raw Treated ) Neponset River Groundwater Groundwater Influent Holding Tank J

Solids for Offsite Disposal

(NOTE Air stripper not necessary if discharge to Neponset)

FIGURE 1-3 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SCHEMATIC

2483JP

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

o n o TABLE 1-16 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

jS bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull - bull liiiiWiii ^ ^ iviiiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[i^i^^^^ iiiiiiijiMf|iilaquo4 Precipitation Aeration and Carbon AdsorpUoi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiritliiiiin

iiiii iiSiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii and Filtration M^ Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii|iiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii liiiijlliiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii i i i i i i i|ii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii Giliii iiiii ii iiiii i iiiic iD|i laquoi|iiiiiiii iiiiitiiiiciiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiii^^^iiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiliipliiiiiiiliiliiiiii iiiiiiiiillpiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii^iigtiiiiiliiii bullii-iiiliiliiiifiiiiiiiii ANALYTES

Aluminum 34900 620 358 490 240 U

Antimony 3i U NA 44 U 44 U 44 U

A r ^ n i c bullbullbull 84 NA 1 U 71 J i UJ

Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597

Bciyliium bullbullbull bullbullbull 3 i i fAr - bull I U I U i i - l u bull Cadmium 62 U NA 4 UJ 4 UJ 4 UJ

Calcluiffli- 30800 bull22600 9650 8360 7880

Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 UJ U)

Cobalt iiii^i- i 331 iio y 4 U 4 U 4 U

Copper 642 NA 128 U 179 U 64 UJ

^tradeiiiiiiii- i 84600 i i i 190 i645 u 232 U i i l8 l U ^ 253 5 U 3 5 U 46 U 21 U

Magalaquosiuni i 11laquoraquo i3f70ovii- i 3700 7060iii 2950 ii

Manganese 4810 350 62 U 18 UJ 23 U

Wtercwyi^i bullbullbullbull bull o i z V z NAi 02 U 02Ui iii 02 U Nickel 281 NA 181 UJ 244 UJ 2b9 UJ

PtjbtWuitt bull-bullbull bull 4 6 5 0 - - i 500pilf 2200 U 2620 U 2000iU

Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 10 U

Sflyer ii-i - A- J - NA bull bull bull U bull 4iiV-i bullii4UJ

Sodium 123000 95500 99000 lOIOOO 99800

Thiiytttg bullbull bull bull v bull bull bull N A i I UJ I Ul bull v^y Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U

Zincii -^ bull 488 20 U 151 U 67 UJ J9 U

iiiiiiiiiiii^^iiiisiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i i i i l i i l ^ j i i p t i ^

|ii|||iii|iii||iB|iijii|iiiii| ^ltii |p|iigtliiiii|ii3||||||ii |(u|i^i5iiiiii(upi-iii

193 U

44 U

1 v y

49 U

I V4

6940

7

4

9

181

12

3120

35

02

17

3260

1

UJ

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

U

U

U

UJ

4 U

100000

1 UJ

5 U

152 u

311

44 11

99 J

131 U

y ^ 4

16400

7

4

256

217

24

7590

53

lilJ

i

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

02 U

356 U

6600 bull

1 ij

4ir^

74500

I UJ

83 UJ

21 r u

ilii ii-iiiiiii

iiiiillii|iiiiii-i

iilliiii

bulliiiiiiiii iiiii|iiiiiii 10 P

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiii bullbull 2600

bullbullfiiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiPiiii 4 bull U j

bulliiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS 100

iiiiiiiiiNC i iiiiiii

1300

iviii300iiiiii|iiiiiiii

15

iiiiiiiiiiKCiiiiiiiiiiiiii trade^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bdquo

iiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiii 50

i-iiiiiiil iii-tiiiiii iishy

iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii NC

i 5000 i iS ii

i i i i iii ii-yuLpyi^laquoBi-eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiblSCHARGEiiLEVlFlJiiiiiii

iii iiiiiii iiii

PAliiY iiiiiiiiiiiiiAYQiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii iiii||||||||||iiii|j|ii| iiiiiii|i|i|ii iiiiiiiiiii^iifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitlii)iiiii

I N C bullbull ^ N C bullbull N C

1866 636 182320

-bullbull NC- bull NC 30

bullbullbull N C NC N C

2756 112 f 28

17 8 3604

NC NC NC

339 233 67840

NC NC NC

102 76 NC

- NG-- 21200i^ --^C

297 II NC

--NC- -- NC- iNC

NC NC 2120

--i--5l bull bull 0 3 ^ bull i i

13632 700 80560

-bull-bull NC bullbull NC-i NC 424 106 144160

^-U bull i-iii3-bull-bullbull NC

NC NC NC

29686 848 6

NC NC NC

763 700 NC

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

n n o TABLE 1-17 COMPARISON OF INORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS

DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

[isjiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii |iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bull immMmii^^ F- piiiipiiiiil i i i i i i i i i i i AcraUon and Caibon AdsorpUon iii iii iiii i i i i l l l i i i i i i ^ ^ i p t ^ sectffllM^ ^ ^

|i|iiii|inj||||ii|iiii and Filtration [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii liHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i iiiiiiiili iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii||iiliiiiiiiiilli iiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiii mmMim^mmmm^ [bull Iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iipipi^iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiieiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii |iiiip||ii|iiiiiiii|i(ii|9i|i||ii ifilliiiii iiiiiiiiMi|iiiiiii|iHiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii [iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii- iiiiiiiilliiiiiisiiii iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiilWiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i-iiiiiii iiii^(iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiij(iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillliii iiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ANALYTES

Ajumin iw u i 358 bull490 z ii 240 i--lJi iiiiiiiiiiiJ^3iiitJi i i iii i3 lliiiiiiiiii iiii|ii]^(Ciiiiiiiiiii-iii-iiiiiiii5iiiii-iiiiiiiiNC^ Antimony 2i ij NA 44 U i44 U 44 U 44 U 44 U 10 P 88 30 8600

Ariseiaic- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii8iiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii-iis- - iiiiiiiiii- 1 u 71 J i-iiiiiy3|ili-uj - i i i 9 l i j i iii--5Qiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii NC- NC - iL | Barium 247 32 106 U 65 U 597 49 U 131 IJ 2006 NC NC NC

Blaquoay|Hiiraquosi-- bullbullbull--bull i-iiiii-iiiiii3iiiiiiliiiiiiii -iiiiiiiiiiiNAi-iiiiiii I u -- 1 U iiiiiiiiiliilliiiiii-ii|iyi- iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii|i|40 - 53-bullbull13|shyCadmium ( S i u bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull N A 4 UJ 4 UJ bullr^^ 4UJ 4UJ 5 682 038 170 Cai lc turn i bull- iiiiii3PiOCfiii iiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii 9650 i 8360 iiii7886iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiii-ii6^^ iiiiii5isNltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiNC NGi NC Chromium 315 NA 8 J 7 UJ 7 u j 7 uj 7 iirj 160 16 11 3206

CO i-iii-iiii 33iitiii-iiiiii ii-iiiii-i-Jfiiiiii--iiii - bull bull 4 U Z 4 U- iiiiiiiiiiiiiilii-uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii4iitjiii-iiiiiiiiiii4 iiiiii-ii Nltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i l i iNc-- -NCi^-NCi

iiii-ii-iiiii34 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiM^iiii-il iiiiiiiiiiii5Piiii|iiiiiii

P ^ i bull bull Copper 6 4 i NA 128 U 179 U bull64Uj 9 U --256--u-- 1300 48 36 NC

Jtaa- iiiiiiiiiiii ltJOlt iiiiiiiiiii isiiiiiiiJQiii-i - z 6AS U ii232U-^^ bulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2 ipit|iiiiii iiiiii3pQiiiiJiiiilii liiiNC- v 1000- bull- NCi head 253 5^U^ 35 U 46 U 21 U 12 U J 2^4 u 14 054 NCis |Magnlaquoaiuiai iiiiiiiiiiilaquo)6iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii|lS)6iiiiiiiiiiiiii 3700 7060i V^ bulliiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii3Jpiiiiiii7^0iiiii^^^ i iiigtKSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii bulliii I N C bull N C Ncjii Manganese 4810 bull356 62 U 18 UJ 23 U 35 U 53 U 56 S NC NC 106

Wtercuryi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyiiiMiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAiiiiiii i P-2 U bullbull 0 2 U-- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiOi|iiittiiiiiii|iiiii 6iiiiit|iiiiiiiiiiiiiQ|iit|iiiiii iiiii|i|iiiiiiiiiii iiii|iii24- -- oon --0i|i Nickel 281 isrA 181 UJ 244 UJ 269 uil 17 U 356 il 166 P 643 33 3800

Potraquoslaquolum -iiiiiiiiiii4liS0iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii PPQiiiiU i 2200 U i ii 2620 XT | |i |owiiyiiiiii | |(^iiiiiiiiiii^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiW|iiiiiiiiiiiiii iii iii|ip--i NC- bullbullbull-KCii Selenium 20 U NA 32 U 13 UJ 1 6 u 1 UJ i u 5 6 266 50 6800 Sflycri i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii- i-4U bull -^M- U iii bull i i i i | | i | | i i i i |-i i | i | l | i i i i | i i i i iiiii-i ^66iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i|iP37 -0i2iNi Sodium 1 2 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6 99000 lOlOOO 99866 106066 74566 NC NC NC NC

I m iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii||jriiiiii||iii|i|iii|| | ii46Q ^40- -bull-3iThaUJiiiitt - iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiNAii- I UJ ^ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Vanadium 439 NA 5 U 83 UJ 5 U 5 IJ 0 IJJ NC NC NC NC

Ziiicii^ iiiiiiii-iiiii- 488iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii6iiu 151 U 67 UJ iiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil52iU- iiiiiiiii2 liiiiiiiiiii iiJiOQ()ii- Siiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii|6 bull bull33 - N C i

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

U = Undetected at specified detection limit

J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria eus ts for the compound

P = Proposed MCL

S = Secondary MCL

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

o n o TABLE 1-18 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO THE NEPONSET RIVER

5 - | iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii g||| ||i||iiiiiPT^]^||t^iii iii j|ra^ iiiiCMi^iiiiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVFIS

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-liiiiii k Siailiplfi iii^if^jbiiirl^iiii iiiiiiiiiiiffliiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iA^T^iiii ii|iiiiiiiiii||ii|iiii iiplaquoliyiiiiiiiiiiii MCt|iiiiiii iiiiiiliil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiAS^iiiiiiiiii-iiii^

||x|o | bull iiii||i||il|A iiiiii iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiili ii5iiPo|laquo|o|i iii||l|i|i||ii||y E^ly1 C DoteslOO ii i^i|raquoiiipltii=(iiiii|iii iiii i i w i M w iiiiiiilliHiJLYiiii iiiiWiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiililiiiiiiiiiliiiiii bulliiiiii lagaiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugL) iiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii iiUiiiiiii^ WmnKiiiiiii i(iiiiiiii i iii iiiiiiiiiiMiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichlorocthane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 8904

1122-TetrachIororthane 16 J 25 U 1 u I u I U 1 u 1 u NC NC 50880 2332

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 U I u 1 u NC 612680 26288 3328

Vinyl Chloride 10 U 50 U I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 2 NC NC 111300

11-DichIoroethene 10 U 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 245920 0 403

12-Dichloroethene (total) 200 D 97 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 70 245920 NC 29680000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 2 5 954000 464280 19504

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 111936 17808 1876

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J 1 u I u lOOOO NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I U NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U I 424 276 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 5300 1060 NC

13-Dichlorobenzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 55120

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 55120

12-Dichlorobciizcne 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 360400

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 U 10 u 10 U 9 5300 1060 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Arocloi-1254 36 J 32 NA 01 u NA OI u NA 05 42 03 01

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 11 01 01

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 64 NC 002

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 51 OI 01

Notes

Discharge levels calculated by multiplying AWQC (10-S risk) by a dilution factor based on a 100 gpm treatment discharge rate and a Neponset River 7Q10 of 2020 gpm

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

o n o TABLE 1-19 COMPARISON OF ORGANIC FULL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDY RESULTS TO MCLS AND DISCHARGE LEVELS - DISCHARGE TO MEADOW BROOK

r^^i^i^-^ iiii^iii^iii^iiiii^ iiil^f^llpbrii^ bullbulliii-CriiiA|gtaiiii ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS

i 1 liiiisisi i ii iii iii|i|i i l i 11 i |ii^^ i i i i i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiieiciidiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiliiiiiii^^iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiliiiii i iiiiipiiiliiiiiiiliiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii|iii|i|i-iiiiii iiAVQiii|iiiii i ii-iiiiiiigt-iiii ^^

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I i i i i i i i i||i|i|||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|iiii iii-|iiilaquo|i3[i|ii |||^|ii^|i|^|iii i (3 i i ^ ^ l i i illjliii^jiii^ iieip|i(iii|i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i^|iii|(iiiijiii|)|r^ iiii-iiliiiiiiiiiiiii ||i |illlli|i i|li|i|ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii|tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilaquoiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i (laquoy^ iiiiiiiiiiiii(Wiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i lK^ iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (ugl)iii iiMiiiiiii VOLATILE ORGANICS

112-Trichloroethane 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 5 NC NC 420

1122-Tetrachloroethane 16 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u NC NC 2400 110

Chloroform 4 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u NC 28900 1240 157

Vinyl Chloride 10 u 50 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 NC NC 5250

11-Dichloroethene 10 u 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 1 u 7 11600 NC 19

12-Dichlorocthene (total) 200 D 97 1 u I u 1 u 1 u 1 70 11600 NC 1400000

Trichloroethene 860 D 430 1 u 1 u 1 u I u 2 5 45000 21900 920

Tetrachloroethene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 U 5 5280 840 89

Xylenes (total) 1 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 01 J I u I U 10000 NC NC NC

Chlorobenzene 5 J 25 U 1 u 1 u 1 u 1 u I u NC NC NC NC

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS

Pentachlorophenol 25 U ND 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 25 U 1 20 13 NC

Chlorobenzenes(total) 250 50 NC

13-Dichlorobcnzene 3 J 2 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 2600

14-Dichlorobenzene 17 9 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 75 NC NC 2600

12-Dichlorobenzene 7 J 5 10 U 10 U 10 u 10 U 10 U 600 NC NC 17000

124-Trichlorobenzene 2400 D 50 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u 10 U 9 250 50 NC

PESTICIDESPCBS

Aroclor-1254 36 J 32 01 u 01 u OI u OI u NA 05 20 0014 00045

Heptachlor 0074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 04 052 00038 00029

Aldrin 017 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NC 3 NC 000079

Heptachlor Epoxide 0045 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 02 NC NC NC

gamma-Chlordane | 0056 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 24 00043 00048

Notes

Discharge levels are AWQC (10-5 risk) since the treatment discharge rate of 100 gpm is higher than the flowrate of Meadow Brook

Compounds presented are only those detected in the untreated groundwater sample

NA = Not analyzed J = Estimated value due to validation criteria

NC = No criteria exists for the compound D = The reported value is from the diluted analysis

U = Undetected at specified detection limit P = Proposed MCL

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

Table 1-17 shows a comparison of effluent to effluent discharge levels based on discharge to c Meadow Brook assuming a dilution factor on one If the treated groundwater was discharged

to Meadow Brook effluent discharge levels for arsenic would be exceeded Since arsenic is

a difficult compound to remove in a groundwater treatment plant it is concluded that

Meadow Brook may not be usable as a discharge point

Table 1-18 presents concentrations of organic contaminants in untreated groundwater from

MW-IA the precipitated and filtered effluent the effluent following both aeration and

carbon and the effluent from carbon adsorption only These values are compared to MCLs

and effluent discharge levels Only one carbon dose for the carbon only study the lowest

dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater is shown as a conservative example In both

cases using aeration and carbon and carbon alone organic contaminants were removed to

below MCLs and to below discharge levels Therefore aeration at an air-to-water ratio of

251 and a carbon dose of 05 g carbon1000 ml groundwater effectively removed volatile

organics semivolatile organics and PCBs from the groundwater

c It is expected that a maximum air-to-water ratio at 251 will be effective for an air stripper

onsite because full-scale air strippers are many times more efficient than the bench scale

models This is due to the greater surface area and turbulence found in the stripper The

off-gas from the air stripper will have to be treated to meet applicable standards either by a

catalytic oxidation unit or a vapor phase carbon adsorption system

Since no vinyl chloride was present in MW-IA and vinyl chloride is a difficult compound to

remove with carbon adsorption tests were performed with groundwater from ME-8 which

contained 210 xg1 vinyl chloride These results were presented in Table 1-13 which shows

that air stripping at an air-to-water ratio of 251 is effective in removing vinyl chloride In

order to reach the MCL of 2 figl for vinyl chloride an air stripper is required Carbon

adsorption alone would not remove vinyl chloride down to the MCL If the treated

groundwater is discharged to the Neponset River instead of being reinjected an air stripper

to remove vinyl chloride is not necessary since the discharge level is 111300 xg1

35 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

Table 1-19 shows a comparison between the organic concentrations in treatability study c effluents and effluent discharge levels based on discharge to Meadow Brook All volatile and

semivolatile organic compounds are removed to the effluent discharge levels It is

impossible to determine if PCBs were effectively removed since the most stringent discharge

level is 0014 xgL and the detection limit in the study is 01 xgL Discharge to Meadow

Brook may not be feasible due to 1) the treatability study cannot prove that PCBs are

removed to effluent discharge levels and 2) arsenic concentrations in the treated effluent

were higher than effluent discharge levels (based on a dilution factor of one)

The preliminary results of the sludge analysis indicate that the sludge is nonhazardous under

RCRA and TSCA Once the fiill scale groundwater treatment system is on line samples of

the sludge should be reanalyzed to confirm the preliminary results and to further assess the

disposal options

In summary the results of the treatability study indicate that groimdwater from the Norwood

PCB site can be treated effectively to allow discharge to either the Neponset River or r gtlaquo^ reinjection back into the aquifer If treated groundwater is reinjected the treatment plant

must include an air stripper to remove vinyl chloride If treated groundwater is discharged

to the Neponset River an air stripper is not necessary to meet discharge levels however the

use of Best Available Technology (BAT) may be required which would necessitate the

inclusion of an air stripper A cost comparison between an air stripper combined with

liquid-phase carbon versus liquid-phase carbon alone was performed and reported in the

Modeling Report The conclusion was there is not a significant difference in cost the

present worth assuming a discount factor of 8 and a 16-year period of perfonnance was

135 vs 102 million dollars (see Volume 2 Section 3) These costs will be evaluated

further during the design phase of the project The efficiracy at the full scale plant can be

optimized to ensure that at no time will the effluent from the plant exceed any applicable

groundwater or surface water standard

36 C

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

Section Two

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

c

c

20 ROCKS

21 Introduction and Objectives

There are several sources of rocks potentially contaminated with PCBs present on the Grant

Gear property portion of the Norwood PCB site Three different sources of rocks were

collected for analysis from the Grant Gear property The three rock sources included

overburden rocks from a trench west of the Grant Gear facility and below the interim

remedial cap crushed stone from the interim remedial cap west of the Grant Gear facility

and pea stone from the upper and lower roofs of the Grant Gear facility Throughout this

section rocks collected from on top of the interim remedial cap will be referred to as cap

rocks and overburden rocks wUl be referred to as trench rocks The rock collected from the

roof were analyzed under Work Plan 1 and are discussed in the Building Investigation

Report

The objective of this portion of the predesign work was threefold

bull To determine the PCB contamination if any on the different sources of rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of dry tumbling as a remedial altemative for the rocks

bull To assess the feasibility of water washing as a remedial altemative for the rocks

The dry tumblingwater washing was conducted on rocks that were reported to be too large

to be remediated with overburden soils by the solvent extraction technique

22 Description of Work

Samples of the three sources of rocks were collected by Metcalf amp Eddy personnel on

January 8-10 1992 Refer to Figure 1-1 for the locations of the trench and the cap rock

37 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

sampling points The samples were delivered to ENSECO laboratory in Cambridge

c Massachusetts and stored in a refrigerator at 4degC prior to sample preparation and analysis

Metcalf amp Eddy performed the sample preparation portion of the PCB analysis Rock

samples were weighed and gently placed in precleaned two liter glass beakers A quality

control surrogate compound was then added to each sample or method blank for subsequent

percent recovery determination The rocks were then immersed in extraction solvent

consisting of 30 percent acetone and 70 percent hexane by volume iEach sample and blank

was heated to 50degC and intermittently swirled by hand for a thirty minute extraction time

The extracts were then dried using sodium sulfate concentrated to 10 milliliters final volume

and submitted to ENSECO for PCB analysis using EPA SW846 Method 8080

The trench rocks were divided into three size categories with average diameters of one inch

two inches and three inches The rock size is an important consideration for the solvent

extraction remediation technique

^s^^ The three trench rock sizes and six cap rock samples were analyzed initially to determine the

extent of PCB contamination As outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan a second

portion of the cap rock sample with the highest initial PCB concentration was subjected to

water washing remediation and analyzed for PCBs Separate portions of the trench rock

samples were subjected to dry tumbling for ten and thirty minute intervals and water washing

for ten and thirty minute intervals The remediated rocks were then analyzed for PCBs

The dry tumbling and water washing were performed using an electronic rotary device The

rock samples were placed in clean two liter plastic sampling containers with screw cap

closures Laboratory distilled deionized water was poured into the water wash test

containers while the dry tumble samples had only the rocks enclosed

38 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

c 23 RESULTS

The one-inch average diameter trench rocks were initially contaminated with 1800 mgkg of

Aroclor 1254 Because the one-inch trench rocks were above the 10 mgkg cleanup standard

sample portions of the rocks were processed step by step through each of the four

remediations Although an eighty five percent reduction in PCB contamination was achieved

between the initial and final remediation samples the final concentration of 270 mgkg is still

well above the cleanup standard The results however showed a trend with the highest

concentration of PCBs detected on the initial sample lower PCB concentrations with the

ten-minute remediation and the lowest PCB concentrations achieved with the longest

thirty-minute remediation as expected The results for the one-inch trench rocks are

presented in Table 2-1

The two-inch average diameter rocks showed results similar to those of the one inch size

The initial sample had a concentration of 2500 mgkg of Aroclor 1254 The best

remediation result obtained was 450 mgkg for the ten-minute water wash sample A thirty c minute water wash sample for the two-inch trench rocks was not conducted when it became

apparent that a 10 mgkg cleanup level could not be obtained Because the 10 mgkg cleanup

level was not achievable the thirty minute water washing of two-inch rocks was not

conducted to minimize the level of effort and analytical costs The PCB result for the

thirty-minute dry screened sample 1900 mgkg Aroclor 1254 was higher than expected

This result was counter to the trend that was expected and observed with the one-inch rocks

and it demonstrates the non-homogenous nature of the rock samples This trend breaking

analytical result caused by the heterogenous or nonuniform nature of the rock sample matrix

was not repeated because the cleanup level could not be achieved The results for the

two-inch trench rock samples are presented in Table 2-1

The three-inch average diameter trench rocks yielded markedly different analytical results

The initial sample prepared with minimal on- site screening had a PCB concentration of

75 mgkg below the cleanup standard of 10 mgkg Although the initial result was below

39 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

TABLE 2-1 TRENCH ROCK WASHING RESULTS

Trench Rocks 1 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 1800

Ten minute dry screened 620

Ten minute water wash 880

Thirty minute dry screened 290

Thirty minute water wash 270

Trench Rocks 2 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration

Sample mgKg

Initial sample 2500

Ten minute dry screened 490

Ten minute water wash 450

Thirty minute dry screened 1900

Trench Rocks 3 inch Average Diameter

PCB Concentration Sample mgKg

Initial sample 750

Ten min dry screened 210

Ten min water wash 025 UJ

Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected UJ - The sample was nondetect for PCBs to the estimated detection limit

of 025 mgKg

40

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

the cleanup standard it was close enough to warrant the first ten minute dry tumble c remediation step The first remediation step with a PCB concentration of 21 mgkg

confirmed that the three-inch trench rocks are less contaminated than their smaller

counterparts The three-inch ten-minute water washed sample was not submitted for fiill

quality control PCB analysis in an effort to minimize analytical costs The ten-minute water

washed sample result is from a partial quality control PCB screening analysis and is reported

as estimated Because of the lag time in tumaround of analytical results this sample had

been prepared extracted and screened and the information was available therefore it is

presented herein The results for the three inch average diameter rocks are presented in

Table 2-1

Six samples of cap rocks were collected and analyzed for PCBs AU of the results were less

than 02 mgkg or 200 xgkg For these cap rock samples an action level of 50 xgkg was

established in the Quality Assurance Project Plan The 50 xgkg value is an action level

established by EPA for this study only and is not a cleanup level identified in the ROD The

action if the results exceeded 50 igkg was to water wash the most highly PCB contaminated c sample Water washing was performed on cap rock sample number two The initial result

for this sample was 150 xgkg while the ten minute water washed sample yielded 24 igkg

Aroclor 1254 The cap rock results showed fairly consistent PCB concentrations in the range

of 50 to 150 igkg Aroclor 1254 The results are presented in Table 2-2

24 CONCLUSIONS

The cap rock samples were all determined to have PCB concentrations approximately one

hundred times less than the cleanup level of 10 mgkg Water washing conducted on the

most contaminated cap rock sample removed approximately eighty five percent of the PCBs

initially present These cap rock samples contained some fine soil like material which was

perhaps windblown carried on tmck tires or created by friction This material contributed

to the measured PCB concentrations for the cap rock samples

41 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

c TABLE 2-2 INTERIM REMEDIAL CAP ROCKS ANALYTICAL RESULTS

LOCAiSifi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii--iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiliiiiiiiii^ 10 minute Water Wash iiiii|ijii|iiii|iii^ PCB Concentration (ligKg)

1 120 NA

2 150 24

3 110 NA

4 31 U NA

5 86 NA

6 71 NA

Notes Aroclor 1254 was the only PCB detected U - Sample was nondetect for PCBs to the reported

detection limit - The highest initial PCB concentration cap rock sample was

subjected to a ten minute water wash remediation

42

C

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

The results of the rock tumbling and water washing demonstrate that this form of remediation r will not achieve the cleanup level of 10 mgkg for the one-inch and two-inch average

diameter overburden rocks The three inch rocks are below the cleanup level without

remediation It should be noted that these overburden rock samples were coUected from one

of the most highly contaminated areas at the site based on the remedial investigation results

These samples therefore represent worst case conditions

The dry tumbling remediation steps did not remove aU of the adhered soU particles as

anticipated This adhered highly PCB contaminated soU contributed to the measured rock

surface PCB concentration because the PCBs were extracted from the soU as weU as the rock

surface during sample preparation

The water wash remediation was effective in removing aU of the adhered soU The results

indicate that the rock surface and near surfaces have been contaminated with PCBs which

cannot be removed by water washing but are extractable with acetonehexane

c During the trench rock coUection ample one-inch and two-inch average diameter rocks were

avaUable at shaUow depths The trench had to be dug deeper to obtain the three inch size

rocks Because of the relative immobiUty of PCBs in soU the PCB concentration decreases

with depth as reported in the remedial investigation This decrease in PCB concentration

with depth is part of the explanation as to why the three inch rocks showed less

contamination than the smaUer sizes Also a factor is the surface area to mass ratio As the

mass of the rock increases the surface area to mass ratio decreases Since the PCBs are on

the surface or near surface of the rocks as the relative surface area decreases with size or

mass the reported concentration wiU decrease correspondingly

During the trench excavation and overburden rock coUection a two- to three-inch lens of

dark oUy appearing materials was observed This material was analyzed with a PCB field

screening kit and found to contain in excess of 10000 mgkg PCBs Some of the one and

two-inch diameter rocks sampled appeared dark in color Because it was not known whether

43 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c

c

the dark rocks were naturaUy colored or from the tarry lens and to keep the study unbiased

these dark rocks were sampled randomly with the remaining rocks The dark appearing

rocks were estimated to comprise approximately five percent of the one and two-inch rock

sizes Inclusion of highly contaminated rocks in the samples would boost the reported PCB

concentrations

Altemative remedial measures other than rock tumbUng and water washing include detergent

and water washing organic solvent washing or steam cleaning Although preUminary

indications from the solvent extraction vendors are that only up to one inch size rocks can be

handled the possibiUty of designing a treatment system to handle larger rocks wiU be

explored during the design phase of this project If the size of the rocks precludes them

from remediation by solvent extraction along with contaminated soUds a rock cmsher wiU be

employed to reduce the contaminated rocks to a size that can be handled Although other

altematives for rock remediation might work solvent extraction with contaminated soUs or

rock cmshing foUowed by solvent extraction appear to be the easiest most cost effective

means to achieve the cleanup standards Whichever remedial altemative is selected rock

washing would only be necessary on rocks with average diameters between one and two

inches coUected from soU highly contaminated with PCBs A very rough estimate of rocks

onsite between one- and two-inch diameters is approximately 5000 tons No remediation of

the rocks is necessary if the solvent extraction technology can handle two-inch size rocks

44 c


Recommended