proPlanning Research Corporation

proPRC Engineering Planning Research CorporationSuns SUO- -==-- — ' ._. ":"'-' "" •••••••"-"'•'-!" : ;— -- — - -j -- .--• - --- - — - - • "~-~— ---"'303 Easi W.acKe? Drive ."."''"_.r:"~ "!!": " " J" ----=••-- ---_ - ; -••• -*-••--Cnioago_ IL..606D1 — _'j;i....L".r_"_"."V..."~": '..."- -••; — 2L1_- T ™ - - _ • ;;•; - "—";::- /

TWX 9 ra;_2"i 51 1.2 . :"Cable -CONTOWENG

RAYMAEK CORPORATION

FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY

FINAL REPORTPrepared for

U.S* ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYOffice of Waste Programs Enforcement

Washington, D.C. 20460

Work Assignment No.EPA RegionSite No.'Date PreparedContract No.PRC No.Prepared By

Telephone No.

94334783-20-S568-01-7037 '15-0940-93PRC EnvironmentalManagement, Inc.312/938-0300

So [ ,"; n o n I U u o J D

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - _ _ _ _ _ _ 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Site Background Information ' 1-1

1,1.1 General 1-1

1.1.2 Raymark Site l-l

1.2 Nature and Extent of Problem 1-2

1.3 Focused Feasibility Study Objectives - 1-6

1.4 Focused Feasibility Study Assumptions 1-7

1.4.1 General Assumptions 1-7

1.4.2 Hydrogeologic Analysis ; - 1-9

1.4.3 Public Health Risk ' 1-10

1.4.4 Environmental Risk Assessment 1-10

1.4.5 Cost Analysis - 1-11

1.4.6 Post Closure, Long Term . - - 1-11Monitoring Plan

2. IDENTIFICATION AND INITIAL SCREENING OFREMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES

2.1 General Response Actions 2-1

2.2 Evaluation of Response Actions - - 2-1

2.2.1 No Action 2-1

2.2.2 Capping 2-2

2.2.3 Containment Barrier . 2-2

2.2,4 Groundwater Pumping and Treatment : ^ "2-4

2.2.5 Alternative Water Supply - 2-8

2.3 Results of Response Actions Evaluations - 2-9

2.4 Development of Remedial Alternatives 2-10

i OG.535

3. REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

3.1 General Description of Technologies 3-1

3.2 Remedial Action Alternatives 3-7

4. ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

4.1 Introduction 4-1

4.2 Pumping of Contaminated Groundwater 4-2

4.3 Carbon Adsorption ,., ... 4-17

4.4 Air Stripping -• • ~ •- 4-22

4.5 Surface Water Discharge 4-28

4.6 Reinjection of Treated Water - 4-31

4.7 Closure Plan and Post-Closure 4-42Monitoring Plan

4.8 -Cost Analysis 4-43

4.9 Summary of Alternative Analyses 4-54

5. REFERENCES 5-1

fiRi00337

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure __ _____ . _ _ _ _ _ . _._._.. _ _. . _____ __ _ Pa

1-1 Location Map of Raymark Site, Hatboro Wells, and 1-3Warminster Heights Wells.

1-2 Locations of Sampling Wells (NUS Corp.,' 1985). 1-8

2-1 Groundwater Table Elevation 09/24/82 (after Luborsky, 1984). 2-7

2-2 Flow diagram of Remedial Option Technologies. 2-11

4-1 Drawdown calculations for various distances and times for a 4-8single recovery well. Hydrogeologic conditions are T =12,000 gal/day/ft, 24,000 gal/day/ft and Q 50, 100, 200gpm.

4-2 Aquifer water level configuration at 1,000 days under the 4-9conditions T = 12,000 gal/day/ft, Q = 50 gpm, with arecovery well(s) centered on the Raymark site (10 ftcontour intervals).

4-3 Aquifer water level configuration at 1,000 days under the 4-10conditions T - 24,000 gal/day/ft, Q - 50 gpm, with arecovery well(s) centered on the Raymark site (10 ftcontour intervals).

4-4 Aquifer water level configuration at 1,000 days under the . 4-11conditions T »• 12,000 gal/day/ft, Q = 100 gpm, with arecovery well(s) centered on the Raymark site (10 ftcontour intervals).

4-5 Aquifer water level configuration at 1,000 days under the ... 4-12conditions T « 24,000 gal/day/ft, Q = 100 gpm, with arecovery well(s) centered on the Raymark site (10 ftcontour intervals).

4-6 Aquifer water level configuration at 1,000 days under the 4-13conditions T » 12,000 gal/day/ft, Q « 200 gpm, with arecovery well(s) centered on the Raymark site (10 ftcontour intervals).

4-7 Aquifer water level configuration at 1,000 days under the 4-14conditions T * 24,000 gal/day/ft; Q = 200 gpm, with arecovery well(s) centered on the Raymark site (10 ftcontour intervals).

4-8 Conceptual Flow Diagram for Carbon Adsorption Process. 4-18

4-9 Conceptual Flow Diagram for Air Stripping Process. 4-23

111fifiiOD333

4-10 Aquifer .water level configuration at 1,000 days under the 4-34conditions T = 12,000 gal/day/ft, Q = 50 gpm, with arecovery well(s) centered on the Raymark site and injectionwell(s) located midway between the Raymark site and H-17(10 ft contour intervals).

4-11 Aquifer water level configuration at 1,000 days under the 4-35conditions T = 24,000 gal/day/ft, Q = 50 gpm, with arecovery well(s) centered on the Raymark site and injectionwell(s) located midway between the Raymark site and H-17(10 ft contour intervals).

4-12 Aquifer water level configuration at 1,000 days under the 4-36conditions T = 12,000 gal/day/ft, Q - 100 gpm, with arecovery well(s) centered on the Raymark site and injectionwell(s) located midway between the Raymark site and H-17(10 ft contour intervals).

4-13 Aquifer water,level configuration at 1,000 days under the 4-37conditions T = 24,000 gal/day/ft, Q = 100 gpm, with arecovery well(s) centered on the Raymark site and injectionwel-L(s) located midway between the Raymark site and H-17(10-ft contour intervals).

4-14 Aquifer.water level configuration at 1,000 days under the 4-38conditions T = 12,000 gal/day/ft, Q = 200 gpm, with arecovery well(s) centered on the Raymark site and injectionwell(s) located midway between the Raymark site and H-17(10 .ft contour intervals).

4-15 Aquifer water level configuration at 1,000 days under the 4-39conditions T =-24,000 gal/day/ft, Q - 200 gpm, with arecovery well(s) centered on the Raymark site and injectionwell(s) located midway between the. Raymark site and H-17 (10ft contour intervals).

4-1.6 -Aquifer water level-configuration at 1,000 days under the 4-40conditions T - 12,000 gal/day/ft, Q = 100 gpm, with arecovery well(s) centered on the Raymark site and injectionwell(s) located at Fischer-Porter FP14 (10 ft contourintervals).

4-17 Aqui_fer.iwater level- configuration at 1,000 days under the 4-41conditions T = 24,000 gal/day/ft, Q - 100 gpm, with arecovery well(s) centered on the Raymark site and injectionwell(s) located at Fischer-Porter FP14 (10 ft contourintervals).

D f *i i'1 oh I u u o

LIST OF TABLES

Table __ _ . : . . . . : . . - . - • Pa_1

2-1 Remedial Alternatives 2-12

3-1 Descriptions of Remedial Alternatives 3-8

4-1 Values of hQ-h(ft) for various values of time and 4-6distance from the main pumping well with T = 12000gal/day/ft and Q - 50 gal/min (a), 100 gal/min (b),and 200 gal/min (c) .

4-2 Values of ho-h(ft) for various values of time and 4-7distance from the main pumping well with T = 24000 . .gal/day/ft and Q - 50 gal/min (a), 100 gal/min (b),and 200 gal/min (c).

4-3 Estimated Costs for On-site Groundwater Pumping 4-16

4-4 Carbon Adsorption Process Design.Criteria 4-20

4-5 Estimated Costs for Carbon Adsorption Treatment 4-21

4-6 Summary of Air Stripping Process Design Criteria 4-26

4-7 Estimated Costs for Air Stripping Treatment 4-27

4-8 Estimated Costs for Installation of Discharge 4-jPiping to Culvert

4-9 Estimated Costs for Injection Well 4-33

4-10 Remedial Alternatives Cost Analyses 4-45

4-11 .. . Summary of the Comparison of Alternatives - 4-56

v

Executive Summary _ „___ ....„_„„. .. _, _._ ~-i.. _~~....,,....,.-

The goal ofr this Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) is to review,

describe.and identify those remedial.alternatives that can be

implemented to abate the trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination of

Hatboro Borough's drinking water. The remedial alternatives were

formulated and then evaluated based on their cost-effectiveness

and their ability to meet all applicable environmental, public

health, institutional, and technical requirements. It is not the

intent, of the FFS to recommend a specific remedial alternative

for implementation.

Six general response actions were identified and evaluated. These

remedial actions include the following:

o No action;

o Capping;

o Installing a containment barrier;

o On-site "g'roundwater pumping and treatment;

o Off-site grbundwater pumping and treatment; and

o Providing an alternate drinking water supply.

After initial screening, two response actions were selected for

further considerations: 1) On-site groundwater pumping and

treatment and 2) Off-site groundwater pumping and treatment. On-

site treatment .would be located at the Raymark site. Off-site treat-

ment would be located at the individual contaminated Hatboro

water wells. Hydrogeological data were then evaluated to deter- _ ..

mine.the feasibility of.the pumping/treatment remedial action.

A R i C G 3 ' i _ l

Proven treatment processes were also evaluated to select

appropriate (cost-effective and environmentally sound) treatment

methods.

Carbon adsorption and air stripping were identified as the

treatment technologies best suited for the removal of TCE from -

the contaminated groundwater. The treated Water would then be

either discharged to a surface water body (creek or culvert) or

reinjected into the aquifer.

Based on the selected pumping/treatment response action, ten

remedial alternatives (Table 3-1) were identified. A detailed

analysis was performed on each proposed alternative, based on the

following factors:

o Technical adequacy;

o Environmental and public health impacts;

o Institutional issues; and . .: .

o Costs.

The estimated capital costs and operation and maintenance expenses

for each alternative were computed for comparisons among the ten

alternatives.

[2]

f i R I G C 3 l _ 2

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 - - -Site Background Information . . ... . .

l.-l.l -General . ..---„, - - - • •- ,-,——-• - -..—,-..-•—•

In 1979, samples of some of the public drinking water wells in

Hatboro Borough showed concentrations of trichloroethylene (TCE)

as high as 500 micrograms per liter. Subsequently, the Environ-

mental Protection Agency (EPA) began investigations in October,

1979 .into the contamination of the Hatboro Borough, Pennsylvania

water supply by TCE. ":"" ""•-

1.1.2 Rayjnarfc S ite ™ - - : - - • - -

The Raymark site is located on Jacksonville Road in Hatboro

Borough, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. There is one manufac-

turing building on" the site. - -

The Milford Rivet & Machine Company, a subsidiary of Raymark

Corporation, owned and operated the facility until 1981. In

October 19.81-, Milford sold the property to the Telford Industrial

Development Authority. In November. 1981, Mr. Manuel N. Stamatakis

entered into an Installment Sale Agreement with the Authority to

purchase the facility. The plant is presently leased to Penn

Fasteners for the manufacture of rivets and fasteners.

In the production o.f metal rivets, Milford Rivet utilized a

degreaser. for_. non-porous ferrous and non-ferrous parts. The

1-1 * p t n ~ c-t.H ft i C U o S-

rivets and fasteners were degreased using 30, to 40 gallons per

day of Perm-a-clor, a solvent containing TCE. Milford has indi-

cated that the degreasing system was a closed loop system with

all waste solvent returned to the supplier for reclamation

(Walker, 1979).

Former plant personnel have stated that TCE was stored in outside

above ground tanks and that metal cleaning drums used for the

degreasing operation were located above a concrete pit (Aitken,

1982) .

Aerial photos of the site taken in 1950, 1965 and 1970 showed that

four lagoons were located behind the manufacturing plant. The lagoons

reportedly were used for wastewater neutralization and storage from

1943 to 1972. According to plant personnel, the lagoons were orig-

inally installed with clay liners. It was reported that when the

lagoons were removed from service in 1972, the material above the liner

was excavated and removed from the site, and the lagoons were then

filled with clean material to grade (Betz-Converse-^Murdoch, 1982).

It was reported that, as of 1980, TCE is no longer used on the plant

site ( Wassersug, 1982).

1.2 Nature And Extent Of Problem

The Hatboro Borough drinking water supply wells near the Raymark site

have shown TCE contamination. Figure 1-1 is a map indicating the

relative locations of the Raymark (Penn Fastener) site and the drinking

water wells.

1-2r n • p -, -. -, —H r. ; u o o 4 4

A HATBO.RO WELLS

• OBSERVATION WELLS

• SAMPLING WELLS - .=_-__. - , - _ - - = -

O WARMfNSTER HEIGHTS WELLS . . •-. F1QURE I-3 RAYMARK WELL LOCATION MAP OF RAYMAffK SITE,

HATttftO WCLL3 AND WAftMINSTER HEIGHTS WELLSNOT TO SCALE-.. .__.." . f, , , ^. .- f , I

_________;____________ _________, • ^.- •' , , t • ~_.n—————————————————————-1-3 ————————————————————— Htt i U o u 'f

The following data indicate the maximum concentrations of TCE in

the contaminated water from some of the Hatboro wells (Aitken,

1982 and Gilmore, 1982.)

Name Of Well TCE Concentration (ppb) __ _ _

HI . .-190H2 ' 110K3 38H7 8K12 6H14 297H16 108H17 729

Due to the TCE contamination in the well water supply, the above

eight Eatboro municipal wells were temporarily taken_out of

service in 1979. The TCE concentrations in most of these wells

were significantly higher than the suggested no adverse response

level (SNARL) of 4.5 ppb (U.s'. EPA, 1985), exposing the users of

these Hatboro wells to potential health risks.

Studies conducted on the toxicity of TCE indicate that it

produces liver and kidney damage and central nervous system

disorder in mammals. Other studies have reported that TCE has

carcinogenic and mutagenic characteristics? hence decontamination

of groundwater is necessary to protect the health of Hatboro's

residents. The following computed excess lifetime cancer risks

from the National Academy of Science Model.are based on assuming a

human drinking 2 liters of TCE contaminated water per day for seventy

years (U.S. EPA, 1985):

1-4r D'T ="- - ' • • • /•* n i u u c •>_ b

TCE Concentration p __ . . .Excess Risk

4.5 ppb -one excess cancer per millionpersons

45 ppb . " . ten excess cancers per millionpersons

75 ppb _ " . approximately twenty excess cancersper million persons.

Although Milford Rivet & Machine Co.'claimed that the degreasing

system utilizing TCE was a closed loop system, the presence of

TCE in the soil on the Raymark site and in the groundwater under

the site, has been established and documented. The soil analyses

performed by Betz - Converse --Murdoch, Inc. (BCM) (1982)

indicated the following TCE concentrations:

Quantity of TCESample.No. .-. -: Depth Col-lected (ft) .(micrograms/kilogram)

1A — -----—- - " - - " - - - - 3 - ' ' 640IB - - 9 . .___ 502A . .:...-- ~-3 .- ; . <52B - - ..—--—. - - - - - - - - - 7 " ' - - - - - i:i3 6 200

Samples 1A and IB were taken next to the production building at

the site of the former above ground TCE storage tanks. Samples

2A- and 2B were taken behind the waste treatment plant where

the waste holding/neutralization lagoons were located. Sample

No. 3 was taken near EPA well (No. 10).

The BCM report speculated that soil contamination was due to

"occasional minor spills or splashing during the filling of the

above - ground tanks and washing of the material downward by

subsequent__precipitation." The report also identified the possi-

X""3 p- r\ ; <•". ~. ,— f —,

Afi i U U O H ?

bility of "some carry-over of TCE to the holding or neutraliza-

tion lagoons".

In the fall of 1984, five sampling wells (R1-R5) were installed

by EPA west and northwest of the Raymark site (NUS, 1985).

Samples collected from the sampling wells and Raymark_._well (PF1)

on October 29, 30, and 31, 1984, indicate a maximum TCE concen-

tration in groundwater of 4100 ppb (Figure 1-2) . The data also

indicate that the direction of the contaminated groundwater flow

is from the Raymark site towards the Hatboro water.wells HI, H2,

H3, H7 and H17 (See Section 2.2.4 for further discussion).

Hatboro Borough has installed air stripping equipment on two of

their water wells (H12 and H17). Construction is underway to

install an air-stripper on another water well (H14).

1.3 Focused Feasibility Study Objectives

The Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) addresses several proven

remedial measures that may be implemented tb safeguard the

residents utilizing the Hatboro well system,against human health

threats posed by TCE in the drinking water supply.

The study objectives were developed in consultation with the U.S.

EPA and form the basis of this report. The study objectives are

as follows:

o Based on review of existing data from EPA, develop andscreen response actions;

o Develop and analyze remedial alternatives; and

1-6. -*1 " •"' * ni u u 0 *r O

o Review remedial alternatives with respect tocost and non-cost considerations.

The technical development and review of the remedial action

alternatives will focus on those alternatives which have been

successfully implemented at other sites.

1.4 Focused Feasibility Study Assumptions

To complete the development and analysis of remedial action

alternatives for the Raymark site, the following assumptions were

madd and- utilized.

•, _ _ — _ .1.4.1 .-"""": - General Assumptions

1. The Raymark site will continue to be used for industrial

purposes.

2. PRC has been provided with all existing and accurate site

analytical data.

3. Groundwater treatment facilities can be installed on the

Raymark site.

4. An injection well can be installed midway between the Raymark

site and Hatboro"well H17.

5. Regulatory agencies will, have access to the site.

1-7r. n ; /-. .-.AR! 0001*9

rgI

inCO

fr0uw

1-8AH i uOotxQ

1.4.2 Hydrogeologic Analysis Assumptions

1. The hydrogeologic conditions such as the potentiometrie

level in the aquifer and flow directions are as described

in Luborsky (1984).

2. The groundwater system in the vicinity of the Raymark site

can be considered to be approximately in a steady .state

condition; i.e., groundwater withdrawals are approximately

balanced by infiltration recharge. This assumption

effectively means that the drawdowns produced by the Hatboro

wells are constant.

3. For calculation purposes, the groundwater system is under

confined, infinite aquifer conditions; i.e., the assumptions

inherent .in..the development of the Theis (1935) non-

equilibrium equation are applicable. For practical pur-

poses and scoping calculations, this assumption simply means*that the storage coefficient or storativity of the aquifer

utilized-in the calculations is on the order of 10~4.

Although the resultant calculated response is equivalent to

that of a confined aquifer, it is recognized that portions

of the aquifer., may well be under water table conditions (as

interpreted and discussed by Luborsky, 1984). The storage

coefficients of 10~4 to 10~5 reported from pumping tests in

the aquifer (Rima et al. 1962) may reflect the influence and

significance of fracturing in the aquifer, (resulting in a -

A R i U U 3 5 1

relatively low interpreted storativity particularly during

.early-time test data analyses). A storage coefficient of

this magnitude is consistent with measurable drawdowns/

radius of influences of approximately 2500 feet (Sloto and

Davis, 1983).

1.4.3 Public Health Risk Assumptions

1. During implementation of the remedial action, workers and

the general public will have access to the site.

2. New drinking water wells will not be constructed between

Raymark Site and the existing Hatboro water, wells.

3. The air strippers which were designed by Gilmore &

Associates to treat the contaminated water from the

Hatboro wells can achieve an effluent TCE concentration of

4.5 ppb or less.

4. The maxiumum TCE level in the contaminated groundwater under

the site is 4100 ppb.

5. The desired treatment level for TCE in groundwater is 4.5

ppb.

1.4.4 Environmental Risk Assessment Assumptions

1. Pumping.of groundwater will be permitted.

2. Relocation of nearby residents will not be required.

3. The Raymark site is situated in an industrial area and

there are no endangered species present.

1-10AR 1 GO 352 :

4. There are no wildlife sanctuaries in the area.

5. There are no vulnerable ecosystems in the area.

6. ..: Commercial "resources around the site will not be affected.

7. Historical or .archaeological resources will not be

affected. - - - - - -— -

8. The groundwater will remain-contaminated under the no action

alternative even though two air-strippers are in operation and

another is under construction to treat the contaminated well

water at these Hatboro wellheads (H12, H14 and H17).

1.4.5 ~-":=" Cost Analysis Assumptions

1. The lifetime/operation of the treatment facilities is 15

years; the facilities can be financed at a discount rate of

10 percent.

2. The cost estimates prepared by Gilmore & Associates, Inc.

for the off-site air strippers at Hatboro contaminated water

wells are accurate.

1.4.6 Post Closure, Long-Term Monitoring PlanAssumptions

1. - Implementation of the recommended remedial alternative will

proceed on-site for a period, of 15 years.

2. Site inspections and sampling will continue for a period of

30 years. - :

UK i U U J 0

CHAPTER 2

IDENTIFICATION AND INITIAL SCREENING OF REMEDIALACTION TECHNOLOGIES

2-1 General Response Actions

The following general response actions were identified based on

the information available for the Raymark site:

o No action;

o Capping;

o Containment barrier;

o Groundwater pumping/treatment on-site;

o Groundwater pumping/treatment off-site; and

o Alternative drinking water supply.

2-2 Evaluation of Response Actions

2.2.1 No Action

The no action option is not an acceptable alternative since the .

main objective of remedial action is to decontaminate the

groundwater. This option, however, is included in the above

general response action list as a baseline for subsequent

comparisons. The endangerment assessment conducted by EPA

concluded that if no action is taken, there is imminent and

substantial endangerment to the public (Luborsky and Molholt,

19S5). Thus, the no action option is an unacceptable alternative

2-1 - - _ : . . . _ : _ .A R I 0 U 3 5

2.2.2 -Capping ~ . _ "... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _

Capping a site, is an effective procedure for reducing infiltra-

tion of precipitation into the unsaturated soil region thereby

reducing further off-site migration of TCE contamination. Since

the soil at the Raymark. site is contaminated with TCE, capping

the site may be beneficial. Capping can effectively be achieved

by covering the native., site soil with either clay, synthetic

membranes, asphalt, concrete or other,impermeable materials.

Assuming that the soil is not capped and the groundwater is being

pumped and treated, both infiltration and planned watering of the

surface could enhance migration of TCE into the saturated zone

where it can be -intercepted and treated. Alternately, if the

soil is capped and the groundwater is being pumped and treated,

the TCE already in the soil could remain bound in the soil matrix

indefinitely and. may be a perpetual source of groundwater supply

contamination. More importantly, however, the Raymark site is

currently used for industrial activities and would continue to be

used as such; hence, soil capping would only hinder future activ-

ities at the site. Therefore, soil capping is not deemed to be

an adequate option for.achieving the'FFS objectives and will not

be considered further.

2.2.3 Containment Barrier . :

Containment barriers are generally used to prevent further migration

or flow of contaminated groundwater to undesired zones. These

barriers can be placed downgradient, upgradient or in a circum-

2-2 -

ferential manner. Materials and construction options include

soil-bentonite slurry walls, cement-bentonite slurry walls,

vibrated beam cut-off walls, grout curtains and steel sheet

piling. The feasibility of this option depends on the areal

extent and depth of contamination, and on the geology of the area.

Groundwater analyses (see Figure 1-2) show that TCE has already

contaminated a relatively large area; hence, use of containment

barriers may not be effective at this time.• Moreover, use of a

barrier does not eliminate the possibility of contaminant leaks

due to barrier failure or other unpredictable factors during the

implementation process. More importantly, the depth of contami-

nated ground water (at least 300 feet below ground surface) arid

geologic conditions (arkosic sandstone) eliminate the possibility

of slurry trenches, vibrated beam cut off walls, plasticized

concrete and chemical admixes due to high costs and technical

infeasibility. (The maximum depth of emplacement of any of the

above is less than 100 feet.)

The area immediately beneath the site would require, intensive

hydrogeologic investigation to identify structure or fracture

zones similar to those postulated by Satterthwaite Associates

(1931) and SMC-Martin (1980). The postulated -(op. cit.) fracture

zones are associated with the highest transmissivities in the

aquifer and appear to provide interwell connections between some

of the Hatboro wells. These fracture zones would need to be

grouted in order to reduce the permeability in these preferred

flow zones. The hydrogeologic, geophysical and geologic investi-

A K i 0 0 3 5 6

gations necessary to identify these.zones and the confirmatory

testing and monitoring ..necessary to evaluate the grouting's

effectiveness are not considered to be cost effective. In addition,

the. reliability and degree of certainty associated with such

investigations is not high. Therefore, containment barriers have

been eliminated from further consideration.

2.2.4 Groundwater Pumping and Treatment

Groundwater pumping and treatment involves conveyance of the

contaminated groundwater to the surface followed by removal of

TCE to a desired level. Pumping could be performed on-site at

Raymark site and/or off-site at Hatboro water wells, depending

on the affected area. The treated (decontaminated) water may be

relnjected into the aquifer, discharged to a surface water body,

or utilized in a pub'lic water system.

The decision for interception, withdrawal and subsequent treat-

ment of groundwater depends mainly on the concentration and

toxicity of the pollutant and direction of groundwater flow.

Assessment of the hydrogeologic system based on historical water

well records (Luborsky, 1984) and examination of local topography

as a further indication of the configuration of the water table

indicate that from about 1954 to 1969, the general direction of :

groundwater flow from the Raymark site has been toward the west-

southwest and Hatboro municipal wells HI, H2, H3 and H7. In

1969, Hatboro well H17 was drilled. Pumping in Hatboro well H17

has caused drawdown in Hatboro wells HI, H2, and H3, suggesting

2-4 ARS00357

that groundwater flow from the Raymark site has also developed a

significant northwesterly component of.flow toward H17 due to

the installation and pumping of H17. Analysis of groundwater for

TCE has shown concentrations in excess of 4,000 ppb (Dreish,

1984) between the Raymark site and the Hartboro wells. Since it

has been demonstrated that TCE is toxic (Luborsky and Molholt,

1985), the groundwater must be decontaminated or an alternative

water supply must be located.

Pumping groundwater creates a cone of depression (drawdown)

around the point of withdrawal; hence, groundwater will flow

toward the point of pumping. As groundwater is removed from the

aquifer, it can subsequently be decontaminated. Pumping and

removal of contaminated water beneath the site is technologically

feasible and reliable. It may also control contaminant migra-

tion. However, the relative effectiveness of. such pumping is

highly dependent on the transmissivity of the aquifer beneath the

site. If sufficiently high transmissivity is not present beneath

the site, the relative effectiveness, in terms of the areal

extent of the remedial pumping, will be affected. A discussion

of th* relative effectiveness of pumping under various transmiss-

ivity conditions and pumping rates is provided in Chapter 4.

A review of the available data was conducted in order to deter-

mine the feasibility and effectiveness of on-site groundwater

pumping and treatment as a remedial alternative at the Raymarksite. Technical reports reviewed included Satterthwaite Associ-

2-5 AR I 00358

ates Inc. (1981), Luborsky (1984), Sloto and Davis (1983), SMC-

Martin (1980), Greenman (1955), Hall (1934), and Rima, et.

al. (1962). Based on a technical review of the above reports,r

the groundwater flow regime as presented in Luborsky (1984) is

considered representative of the site conditions.

Based on the available data, groundwater from beneath the

Raymark site flows"primarily in a northwesterly direction

towards the pumping Hatboro well H17. The strong influence of

pumping from Hatboro well H17 is evidenced on the groundwater

table contour map (Figure 2-1) from Luborsky (1984). It is clear

from the directions of groundwater flow on the contour map that

contaminated groundwater from beneath the Raymark Site will enter

the Hatboro well H17 under the assumption that H17 continues to

pump at the rate,which results in the drawdown cone shown on

Figure 2-1. One remedial measure that may eliminate groundwater

contaminant movement from beneath the Raymark Site to the Hatboro

municipal wells is to recover and treat the contaminated ground-

water on-site. - - -- —- - - - - -

It is-possible that the .recovery well(s) installed on the Raymark

site may not be capable of creating a sufficient drawdown

influence to reduce substantially the amount of TCE contamination

that would eventually reach Hatboro. well H17. If the extent of

influence of the on-site recovery system is limited due to low

transmissivity, it may possibly be advantageous to install

injection well(s), using the pumped and treated water from the

2-6aft i n ,~i *"* r" nn I QJo59

LEGEND* 0 RAYMARK SITE SCALEWATER DRAtNAGE .(xx 200O FEET200 WTER level ELECTION _

« HATBORO HELL CONTOUR KTERVAL* »0

FIGURE 2-1: Groundwater Table Elevation 09/24/82 (afterLuborsky, 1984).

2-7 ARi'30360

recovery wells as a hydraulic barrier between the Raymark site

and the nearest .Hatboro municipal wells (H17 and H16) in order to

enhance the area of-influence of the recovery wells. These

alternatives - are discussed in detail in Chapter 4.

The available treatment technologies for removal of volatile organic

compounds from groundwater include reverse osmosis, aeration and

carbon adsorption. Treatment by reverse osmosis and similar

technologies have been tested. The results indicate that these

technologies are .not reliable and have difficulty obtaining a

high removal efficiency (Morris and Donovan, 1983). Currently,

carbon adsorption and aeration are the two most widely used

technologies.for the removal of organic chemicals (O'Brien and

Stenzel, 1984). In addition, the aeration system has proved to

be a reliable-and cost effective technology for the removal of

volatile organic compounds from contaminated water (McCarty,

1983). Since aeration and carbon adsorption are proven methods

for removing volatile organic-compounds from contaminated water,

these-two treatment technologies will be fully discussed and

evaluated in Chapter 3. -

2.2.5- Alternative Water Supply

Providing an alternative drinking water supply for residents that

normally obtain :their water from the contaminated wells is

another option to prevent, any further health risk to the general

public. ___When "TCE was discovered in eight of the Hatboro

municipal wells in 1979, the Hatboro Water Authority stopped-

2~5 A R i O G S B i

using the affected wells and built an interconnecting pipeline to

the Philadelphia Suburban Water Company (PSWC) for conveying

water to Hatboro when the water production from the other

uncontaminated Hatboro wells could not meet the demand. However,

this action would force the Authority to depend on PSWC for an

adequate water supply. The Hatboro Water Authority does not want

to lose its independent status in supplying water to. the general

population in the Hatboro Borough. Therefore, this is not an

acceptable option and has been eliminated from further consideration.

2.3 Results Of Response Actions Evaluations

Based on the evaluation of the six identified response actions,

the following conclusions have been reached.

1. No action is an unacceptable response action.

2. Capping the site will not solve the problem of ground-

water contamination and may hinder future use of the area.

3. A containment barrier is not viable at this .time since

the drinking water supply has already been contaminated. The

geologic conditions under the site precludes the effective use of

a containment barrier.

4. Provision of an alternate drinking water supply is

eliminated from consideration because Hatboro Water Authority

does not want to lose its independent status in supplying water.

2—9 P M i • • ' • r oA lil u u o 6 2

5. "Groundwater pumping and treatment, on-site and/or

off-site, is essential for the protection of the public health

and the environment.

2.4 Development Of Remedial Alternatives

Figure 2-2 presents the remedial option technologies appropriate

for consideration. For the treatment system on the Raymark site,

the contaminated groundwater could be treated by aeration, carbon

adsorption, or a combination of the two technologies. The treated

water could either be discharged into a suitable surface-water

body -or be relnjected into the ground. For the treatment units

at the Hatboro water wells, the Hatboro Water Authority has

selected aeration as the preferred technology for treating the

contaminated water from the Hatboro wells. Air-strippers have

already.been installed at wells H12 and H14, and an air-stripper

is being installed at well H17.

A review of. these options and their various combinations resulted

in the identification of eleven remedial alternatives, including

the no action alternative. These alternatives, which will

undergo a .detailed analysis in Chapter 4, are summarized in Table2-1. - r " --=--"- • • - - - - - - - - -

. ^ r _i U U 0 0 J

GROUND WATER PUMPING

ON-SITE

AERATION

OFF-SITE

CARBON

ADSORPTION

AERATION

AND CARBON

ADSORPTION

DISCHARGETO

SURFACEWATER

AERATION

REINJECT INTO

GROUND

DISCHARGETO

EXISTINGWATERSYSTEM

Figure 2-2: Flow diagram of Remedial Option Technologies

2-11

r D T - , x £ LH U i U w U -t

TABLE 2-1 -REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

Number • ----- ' - -—- =:--~ ------ "•=-""-- Description

1 No action.

2 - Pump out,groundwater on-site, treat by aerationand discharge to" a. surface water.

3 Pump out groundwater on-site/ treat by aerationand reinject into the aquifer.

4 Pump out groundwater off-site, treat by aerationand discharge to the existing water distributionsystem.

5 - Pump outTgrouhdwaten on-site and off-site, treatby aeration and discharge to. a surface water andthe. existing water,distribution system, respectively.

6 - -"- ""~~ "~Pump~r out groundwater on-site and off-site, treatby aeration and reinject into the aquifer anddischarge to the existing water distribution sys-tem, respectively. ~

7 Pump out groundwater on-site, treat by carbonadsorption and discharge to a surface water.

8 Pump out groundwater on-site, treat by carbonadsorption and reinject into the aquifer.

9 Pump out groundwater on-site, treat by carbonadsorption and discharge to a surface water. Pumpout groundwater off-site, treat by aeration anddischarge to the existing water distribution system.

10 " ~"~ Pump out groundwater on-site, treat by carbonadsorption and reinject into the aquifer. Pumpout groundwater off-site, treat by aeration anddischarge to the existing water distribution system.

11 Pump out groundwater on-site and off-site,treat by aeration and carbon adsorption, anddischarge the on-site treated water to a surfacewater or reinject into the aquifer. The effluentfrom the off-site treatment will be dischargedinto the existing water distribution system.

2-12 . ,' p | ft i; 355- •-> *-• u w

CHAPTER 3

REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

3.1 General Description of Technologies •_ _ _ . . „ _ _

In Chapter 2, remedial alternatives for decontaminating the

groundwater at the Raymark site were presented. In this chapter,

a brief discussion of the technologies and a more detailed

description of the alternatives will be presented.

Irrespective of the alternative, the .first task calls for pumping

the contaminated groundwater out of the aquifer. This can be done

on-site, off-site or at both locations. On-site interception,

pumping and treatment of groundwater is necessary to curtail the

migration of contaminated water towards the drinking water wells at

Hatboro. Off-site pumping and treatment is necessary to decontami-

nate the groundwater and should protect the general public served

-by the Hatboro Borough Water Authority from consuming contaminated

water.

On-site and off-site pumping refers to the removal of

contaminated groundwater using wells installed specifically for

the purpose of pumping. Pumping of.groundwater creates a cone of

depression around the withdrawal point. Groundwater will flow

toward this cone of depression which, under favorable hydrogeolo-

gical conditions, will include the contaminated area around the

cone of depression. Further migration of.the contaminant to

uncontaminated zones can then be minimized. Periodic water

sampling and analysis would provide data on the concentration of

3-1 A R I G Q 3 5 6

the contaminant in the groundwater over time. However, the TCE

concentration observed in the pumped water may not be representa-

tive of the TCE concentration which would occur in the ground-

water under non-pumping conditions. Therefore, simple monitoring

of pumped water and cessation of pumping after predetermined

concentrations are achieved, may not be an adequate approach for

setting the criteria to stop pumping. The uncertainties with

this approach are partially attributable to the current inade-

quate understanding of the hydrogeochemical controls on organic

chemical migration in groundwater systems. A partitioning of.

virtually all- organic contaminants between the solid phase (i.e. ,

aquifer ..materials such as sand, silt, organic matter, etc.) and

the liquid phase (i.e. , the flowing groundwater) is usually

encountered-in any groundwater system.. This partitioning is

described in its simplest form in; terms of a partitioning coefficient

which, in the case of.organic chemicals, appears to exhibit a

relatively._str_o_ng relationship to the organic content of the

solid material (Schwarzenbach and Westall, 1981). The

partitioning coefficient"describes the equilibrium sorption and

desorption of the contaminant, under the assumption that local

equilibrium between solid and liquid phases is maintained at all

times. However, if the groundwater is flowing relatively quickly

(e.g., under pumping conditions), the equilibrium rate of

desorption (or transfer from the solid to the.liquid phase) may

be too slow to accommodate the rate of groundwater movement past

the sorption sites. Therefore, under pumping conditions, it may

"appear" .that the aquifer._is "decontaminated" based -on the

groundwater chemical analyses, when in fact, if the pumping

3-2 - A R i G u

ceased and the rate of water movement were reduced, the concen-

tration of the contaminant in the groundwater would increase

again, due solely to the kinetics of the desorption mechanisms.

These factors should be considered and quantitatively

evaluated in the development of decontamination or "cease

pumping" criteria. Continued periodic pumping and sampling is

recommended in section 4.7.

As stated in Chapter 2, aeration (air stripping) and carbon

adsorption are suitable for the removal of brganics, in general,

and volatile organics, in particular. Air stripping of volatile

organic compounds from water is achieved by bringing the water

and air into intimate contact. The different types of aeration

systems suitable for air stripping include diffused aeration,

mechanical aeration, spray tower, trayed tower, and packed tower

(countercurrent flow and cross flow). As contact is made between

the air and water, the volatile organic compound in the water is

transferred to the air and thus, is removed from the water. The

removal rate depends on the rate of transfer of the volatile

organic from the liquid to the gaseous phase. This is a function

of the diffusion coefficient of the material being air stripped.

Other factors which influence this change of phases include the

air to water ratio and the Henry's law constant.

Henry's law constant (H) is the proportionality constant between

the amount of a volatile substance in the gas phase above a liquid

and the amount of the substance dissolved in the liquid at equili-

3-3f f-\ • t-s F~ i" -/*" OA K I U U u 0 O

brium and at a given temperature., Thus, if the partial pressure of

the gas and the concentration in the liquid phase are expressed in

the same unit (e.g., mg/m3), Henry's law constant will be

dimensionless. Henry's .law. constant for TCE at 20°C is approx-

imately 0.42 (McCarty, 1983).

In general^ "the higher the Henry's law constant, the higher the

tendency for the volatile organic compound to move from the

liquid phase into the gaseous phase.

The countercurrent packed tower is generally used for removal of

volatile"organics from contaminated water because it is the most

efficient configuration for mass transfer (McCarty, 1983).

Therefore, only this contacting scheme will be considered

further. The countercurrent packed tower employs a column filled

with a set of packing materials such as rashig rings, berl

saddles, intalox saddles, pall rings or other durable packing

material that will increase the area of contact, between the air

and water. As water flows down the column, air will rise up in

the tower and the .volatile organic compound will be stripped

from the water and transferred into the air stream, resulting in

the decontamination of the water. Air to water.ratio, tower

height and diameter of the column can be selected to achieve the

desired contaminant removal level.

Carbon adsorption has also proved to be a suitable technology for the

removal of organic compounds from water and wastewater. The

efficiency of this process, like many other mass transfer opera-

T — 4. f r~, i "•• - ~ • r~ ,~iM K i U o o o 9

tions, depends on the contaminant/adsorbant equilibrium relation-

ship, mass transfer rate and contact time. Generally, a

packed column is used to provide intimate contact between the

contaminanted water and the carbon media. The process of adsorption

occurs when the contaminant in the water .migrates and is adsorbed

onto the carbon. As such, the properties of both the

contaminated water and carbon influence the mass transfer rate.

The mass transfer rate in general, is controlled by the mass

transfer resistance in the liquid phase (water) and solid phase

(carbon). The extent of adsorption is controlled by the

equilibrium relationship between the contaminant and the carbon.

The equilibrium relationship can readily be used to esti-

mate the quantity of carbon needed for a given treatment level.

As the water flows through a carbon column, adsorption occurs,

removing the targeted contaminants from the water. As the

contaminants are removed, the removal capacity of the carbon is

reduced. As this process continues, the carbon reaches a

saturation point and one or more of the contaminants start to

break through. When the treatment efficiency is reduced to an

unacceptable level, the column can then be removed from service

and the carbon regenerated for the next operating cycle.. Carbon

columns can be arranged in series or in parallel. When two or ...

more column are used in series, the first column can be used

beyond the breakpoint concentration because the second column will

then operate as the primary treatment unit., Sampling between the

columns will indicate when the carbon in the first column is

3-5

flftiOUo/0

approaching exhaustion..., JWith a .suitable piping arrange-

ment, each of the carbon columns can alternate as the lead

column, allowing one or more of the columns to be in use while

the exhausted column is undergoing regeneration. A furnace is

normally utilized for carbon regeneration. If thermal regenera-

tion is judged to be inappropriate due to- the possibility of ... . ..

generating air emissions in violation of the Clean Air Act, the .

spent carbon, can be disposed of in a-landfill.

Recently, a pilot treatment system using carbon adsorption

followed by aeration (induced draft stripper) was used to remove

volatile organic "compounds from contaminated water (O'Brien and

Stenzel, 1984). Since this type of treatment system has not yet

been fully developed and evaluated, it is eliminated from further

consideration.

After., the groundwater is decontaminated, the next step is the

disposal of the treated., water. The on-site decontaminated water

can either, be discharged to a surface water or reinjected into

the ground. Discharge to surface water depends on the treatment

level selected and,.access "to a suitable surface water body. If

the decontaminated water is disposed off-site, this action must

be in compliance with Pennsylvania's .environmental laws. A National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be

required for off-site disposal to a surface water.

3-6A R I 0 0 3 7 I

Reinjection of the decontaminated groundwater can be considered

when (1) it improves the overall treatment strategy, (2) there is

no surface water near the site, and, (3) the treated water cannot

be reused in a manufacturing process. This option involves

construction of injection wells. The feasibility of reinjection

depends on site hydrogeologic conditions and the associated

costs.

3.2 Remedial Action Alternatives

Tables 3-1 lists the alternatives developed in Chapter 2 and

provides a brief description for each alternative. The alterna-

tive numbers correspond to those in Table 2-1. Alternative 11 has

been eliminated from further consideration since the treatment

technology is still in the development stage. In the next chap-*

ter, a detailed analysis of the remaining alternatives will be

presented.

3-7

ARS00372

TABLE 3-1DESCRIPTIONS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

Alternative Number ~"T Description

The no action alternative calls for doing nothingabout the problem. This option is included toto provide a baseline condition for comparisonwith the developed remedial alternatives.

The second alternative requires pumping out thegroundwater on-site and treatment by an aerationsystem. The treated water is "then discharged to asurface water.

In "the third alternative, the groundwater that ispumped out on-site is treated by aeration.However, instead of discharging to a surfacewater, the treated water is reinjected off-siteinto the aquifer. '

This alternative calls for pumping the groundwateroff-site at the Hatboro wells and providingaeration treatment with subsequent discharge tothe. existing water distribution system.

"Alternative five calls for treatment of thegroundwater both on-site and off-site. Thisrequires pumping followed by aeration treatment.The on-site and off-site treated water volumes arethen discharged to a surface water and the exis-ting water distribution system, respectively.

Unlike alternative .five, the on-site treatedwater is reinjected into the ground, while thetreated water from the off-site treatment isdischarged to the existing water distributionsystem. At both sites, aeration constitutes themethod of treatment process to be applied.

Alternative seven requires on-site pumping ofgroundwater followed by carbon adsorptiontreatment. The treated water is then dischargedto a surface water.

Alternative eight is similar to alternative sevenexcept that the treated water is reinjected intothe aquifer.

flR 100373

9 In alternative nine, groundwater is pumped out on-site and off-site. Pumping on-site is followed bytreatment by activated carbon and the treatedwater is discharged to a surface water. Thecontaminated water from the off-site wells istreated by aeration and then discharged to theexisting water distribution system.

10 In this alternative, groundwater is pumped outon-site and off-site and is treated separatelyby carbon adsorption and aeration, respectively.Following treatment, the on-site treated water isinjected into the aquifer while the off-sitetreated water is discharged into the existing waterdistribution system. '

3-9 A R I 0 0 3 7

CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

4.1 Introduction,, . : . _J,i~J,.,. :..J.-. -.. -.,,-*^.-,--- -----

This chapter,presents a detailed analysis of the ten remedial

action alternatives described in Chapter 3. Each alternative is

examined with .regard to technical feasibility, environmental and

public health impacts, institutional requirements, and costs.

The no action alternative is presented as a baseline for compar-

ison with the other .nine alternatives.

With the exception of the no action alternative, each remaining

alternative is composed of .three or more .of the following

remedial action technologies:

o Pumping of groundwater;

o Air.stripping;

o Carbon adsorption;

o' Surface water discharge; and

o ..-injection well disposal of treated groundwater.

As described in Chapters 2 and 3, these treatment technologies

were selected based on each technology's respective abilities to

meet the remedial-action objective; i.e., the abatement of TCE

contamination in the Hatboro underground municipal drinking

water, supply. . . . . . . - - •• --~-

This chapter ..is- organized in nine sections. The first six sect-

ions provide detailed descriptive evaluations of the respective

4-1 ARi00375

treatment technologies. Each evaluation identifies and considers

the adverse and beneficial effects of each technology. The

technical adequacy, relative potential for protection of the

environment and public health, and the institutional effects are

determined and examined. Estimated costs for the construction

and operation of an integrated treatment/disposal system are also

provided. -

Following the six descriptive evaluations, a section is provided

on the estimated costs for each of the nine remedial alterna-

tives. Since each alternative is a combination of several _____ _____

remedial action technologies, the costs previously developed for

the individual treatment technologies were .appropriately combined

to determine the costs for implementing each, alternative.

The last section of the chapter includes a:summary table delinea-

ting the cost information in present-worth, dollars for each

remedial action alternative, as well as the significant impacts

and issues of each remedial action alternative for.comparison.

4.2 Pumping of Contaminated Groundwater

The relative effectiveness of the groundwater recovery .scheme at

the Raymark site is dependent primarily on the transmissivity of

the Stockton aquifer beneath the site and the transmissivity

between the site and Hatboro pumping wells H16 and H17. Wells

H16 and H17 are the two municipal wells which are most directly

affected by contaminated groundwater from beneath the Raymark

site, under the present conditions.&R100376

4-2

It was assumed for calculation purposes that the transmissivity

of the stockton aguifer .was in the 12,000 to 24,000 gallons per

day per-foot (gpd/ft) range (Luborsky, 1984). Sloto and Davis

(1983) report a "radius of influence" of water supply wells of

2,500 feet. A conservative maximum radius -of influence of 2,000

feet was chosen for the following calculations. Given an aquifer

with the above hydraulic characteristics, effective long-term

pumping rates (of one recovery well or the combination of several

wells) on the order of 50 to 200 gallons per minute (gpm) were

assumed. (An effective pumping rate refers to the long-term

average pumping of, one or more recovery wells; i.e., 12 hours

pumping at 200 gpm, followed by 12 hours recovery, followed by 12

hours pumping at 200..gpm, -yields an effective long-term pumping

rate of 100 gpm). For .illustration purposes, a single recovery

well installed at the Raymark site was assumed.

A matrix of time and distance drawdown calculations was

performed, based on the.premise that the assumptions inherent in

the development of the Theis (1935) non-equilibrium equation for

transient groundwater flow are applicable. Given the available

data, the premise is essentially substantiated, with the excep-

tion of major fractures or fracture zones. If a major fracture

zone does exist between the Raymark site and well H17 the

following'"would need to be addressed:

o Is it p.ossible to utilize existing-hydraulic or chemical

data to establish, the existence of a major fracture zone

and, if so, to establish the likelihood of an

4~3 flR!G0377

interconnection to the Hatboro wells?

o Is the fracture zone highly permeable and does it provide

direct connection to the pumping municipal wells?

o Would it be possible to utilize the fracture zone as a

"collector" zone, essentially creating a major hydraulic

influence by pumping the fracture and effectively reducing

the impact of the contamination from the Raymark site on

the Municipal wells?

The existing chemical data (i.e. TCE concentrations in wells Rl

through R5, H2, FP13, and PF1) shown on Figure 1-2 suggest that

the TCE contamination is relatively widespread between Rl and R5-

along the railroad right of way. There does not appear to be

any positive indication, from these chemical data and from the

attempted pumping of these wells (which provided relatively low

yields), of the existence of a significant or .permeable fracture

- related feature in this area. If a fracture zone is encountered

at the site or between the site and the pumping wells, further

more detailed evaluation will -be necessary. The matrix of

drawdown calculations utilize the following input.

Transmissiviti.es (gal/day/ft) = 12,000 and 24,000Storage coefficient = 10~4Radial Distances (feet) - 50, 200, 400, 800, 1,600, 2,000Times (days) = 10, 100, 300, 500, 1,000, 2,000Effective pumping rates (gpm) « 50, 100, 200

4-4 fiRi00378

The results of the calculations using a single recovery well are

presented in Tables '4-1 and 4-2, and are shown on Figures 4-1

through 4-7. The time-drawdown curves for various radial

distances are presented in Figure 4-1* The effect after 1,000

days of pumping on .the groundwater flow system is shown on Figures

4-2 through 4-7 for the two transmissivities and the three

pumping rates. The effect of the single recovery well on the

flow regime is calculated and presented on these figures using

the base conditions on Figure 2-1 and employing the principle of

superposition (Bear, 1979). It is obvious from these figures

that the effect of a recovery well at the Raymark site is to

reduce the.steepness of the drawdown cone centered on Hatboro

well H17, but not to develop a significant reversal of flow. In

actuality, a small drawdown cone would develop around the Raymark

well under certain pumping/transmissivity conditions. The extent

of the influence of the drawdown will, however, be somewhat

limited. Water elevations within the Raymark well are approxi-

mated, from the" calculations and are shown in Figures 4-2 through

4-7 for each of the hydrogeologic conditions.

Time Distance 50 200 400 800 1600 2000(days) (ft,)

10 7.09 5.31 4.68 4.06 3.33 3.11100 7.74 6.41 5.78 5.16 4.43 4.21300 8.26 6.92 6.30 5.61 . 4.94 4.73500 8.52 7.21 6.52 5.85 5.21 4.911000 8.83 7.51 6.88 6.29 - 5.53 5.302000 9,17 7.83 7.21 6.52 5.87 5.63

10 14.18 10.62 9.36 8.12 - 6.67 6.22100 15.47 12.82 11.56 10.30 8.86 8.42300 16.52 13.85 12.61 11.22 -9.88 9.45500 17.04 14.42 13.03 11.70 10.43 9.821000 17.67 15.01 13.75 12.59 11.06 10.622000 18.34 15.66 14.42 —13.04 11.74 11.26

4-1(b)

10 28.36 21.24 18.72 16.24 13.34 12.44100 30,94 25.64 23.12 2'0.60 17.72 16.84300 33.04 27.70 25.22 22.44 19.76 18.90500 .34.08 28.84 26.06 23.40 20.86 19.641000 35.34 30.02 27.50 25.18 22.12 21.242000 36.68 31.32 28.84 26.08 23.48 22.52

Table 4-1: Values of hQ-h(ft) for various values of time anddistance from the main pumping well with T = 12000gal/day/ft and Q - 50 gal/min (a) , 100 gal/min (b) ,and 200 gal/min (c) .

4-6

A R l G u 3 8 Q

8°° 160° 2000

10 " " 3.49" ~2.82~ "2.51 1.16 1.83 1.72

100 4r°4 3-37 3V06 """2.71 2.38 2.27

300 ~:4'30 3.65 ::3V30 2.98 2.64 2.56500 4:42 3.75 ' : 3.43 3.11 2.76 2.66

1000 4'58 3.98 3. 62 3.26 2.92 2.822000. 4.78 - - - 4 . 0 9 - -3175 ' """3.«""" 3.12 2.98

4-2(a)

10 6'98 5'63 5-01 ...4.32 3.65 3.44100 8-08 6'73 6.11 5.42 4.77 4.54300 8'60 7.31 -6.60 5.96 5.29 5 11500 8'84 "7-51 '6.87. 6.21 5.51 5.31

1000 9Vlf "^-83 "~"7.23"": 6.52 5.B5 5.64

2000 9/56 8'18 7-50 6.86 6.24 5.96

4-2(b)

10 13.94 "11.26 10.02 8.64 7.30 6.88100 16.16 13.46 12.22 10.84 9.54 9.08300 17.20' 14.62 13.20 11.82 10.58 10.22500 17.68 15.02 13.74 , 12.42 11,02 10.62

1000 -—18~.37 15.66 14.46 13.04 11.60 11.282000 20.12 - 16.36 15.00 13.72 12.48 11,92

4-2(c)Table 4-2: Values of h'o-h(ft) for various values of time and

distance from the main pumping well with T = 24000gal/day/ft and Q = 50 gal/min (a), 100 gal/min (b),and 200 gal/min (c).

4-7 AT ; n ~ n •>, i.fM uu38 I

<0

3=7.000i'12000

?000

- - - 4 0

JO-

H, - hCO

Q.1UOOO1.2*000

ZOOO zoo°

Figure 4-1. Drawdown calculations for various distances andtimes for a single recovery well. Hydrogeologicconditions are T = 12,000 gal/day/ft, 24,000 gal/day/ft, and Q = 50, 100, 200 gpm.

Q = 50 gpm= 12,000 gal/day/ft

t = 1000 days

WATER DRAINAGE. ^ ^ --Q (OQtf 2QOQ200-. -.« HATBORO I.SIT" ~" ". 1 M"'- ' CONTOUR

FIGURE 4-2. Aquifer water level configuration at 1,000 daysunder,the conditions T = 12,000 gal/day/ft, Q = 50gpm, with a recovery well(s) centered on the .Raymarksite (10 ft contour intervals),

A R i 0 0 3"8 3

Q = 50T =24,000 gal/day/ftt ="1000 days

\0° 13

RAYMARK SITESURFACE WATER DRAINAGEWATER l&Tel.' ELEVATIONHATBORO WELL CONTOUR INTERVAL'

FIGURE 4-3. Aquifer water level configuration at 1,000 "daysunder the conditions T = 24,000 gal/day/ft, Q ==. 50gpm, with, a recovery well(s) centered on the Raymarksite (10 ft contour intervals).

4-10 -• . . f. p t ,, - -i /> M t i u o u o 4

Q = 100 gpmT, = 12,000 gal/day/ftt = 1OOO days

-—— SURFACE. WATER DRAINAGE^ „ . .i -, , ... o inoo ?non200 WATER level ELEVATION uw " iuuu1.2 .HATBORO .WELL . . . . . . - CONTOUR JNTFRxar ;' IP'

FIGURE 4-:4. Aquifer w ter level configuration at 1,000 daysunder the conditions T =• 12,000 gal/day/ft, Q = 100gpm, with a recovery well(s) centered on the Raymarksite (10 ft contour intervals).

4-11ARi DO'585

Q =100 gpmT = 24,000 gal/day/ftt =1000 days'

RAYMARK SITE ~ -iSURFACE WATER DRAINAGE „.

z o o WHTER level ELEVATION ' , ,« HATBORO WELL CONTOUR l^^^FRVAl ; 10'

FIGURE 4-5. Aquifer water level configuration at 1,000 daysunder the conditions T = 24,000 gal/day/ft, Q = 100gpm, with a recovery well(s) centered on the Raymarksite (10 ft contour intervals).

4-12 AR100386

Q = 200 gpm= 12,000 gal/day/ft

t = 1OOO days

LEGZftD.-- ---ffl RAYMARK SITE ... ... _. .._.:.._. ______________———————— ——-.—— "SURFACE. WATER DRAINAGE '" .. . " _" J~~———loOO 2OOO FEET

200 WATER level ELEVATION '12 .HATBORO .WELL _. _ . . .. • _ .... .CONTOUR INTERVAL - '0

FIGURE.4--&. Aqtrifer water level configuration at 1,000 daysunder:the conditions T = 12,000 gal/day/ft, Q = 2009ptt/. with a recovery well(s) centered on the Raymarksite (10: .ft contour intervals) .

4-13

Q = 200 gpmT = 24,000 gal/day/ftt = 1OOO days

RAYMARK SITE '_.——- SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE200 WATER level ELEVATION« HATBORO WELL " CONTOUR INTERVAL:

FIGURE 4-7, Aquifer water level configuration at_ 1,000 daysunder the conditions T = 24,000 gal/day/ft, Q » 200gpia, with a recovery well(s) centered on the Raymarksite (10 ft contour intervals).

4-14r t h l Q u o

Pumping of the contaminated groundwater should not pose any

adverse impact on the environment..and.public health. As

previously discussed, the drawdown due to the recovery well

should not affect the water production from the Hatboro wells.

The contaminated groundwater would be pumped to a holding tank

where it would be transferred to an air stripper or carbon adsorber

for removal of TCE. Public exposure to the contaminated

groundwater.'would be minimal during the pumping phase of the

remedial action.

An approval from the Delaware River Basin Commission is required

for withdrawal of groundwater when the daily average gross

withdrawal during any calendar month exceeds 100,000 gallons. An

application has to be submitted to the Commission (1981) for approval

under Section 3.8 of the Delaware River Basin Compact. Since

Hatboro Borough and Warminster Height Township are located within

the Groundwater Protected Area, Section 10.3 of the Compact which

establishes more stringent conditions for groundwater withdrawal

is applicable. Under this more stringent regulation, a protected

area permit is required .when the average groundwater withdrawal

rate.is more than 10,000 gallons per day over a 30-day period

(Delaware River Basin Commission, 1982).

Table 4-3 presents: the estimated-costs associated with pumping of

the contaminated groundwater. • • ~ : ~

4-15 flfiiOG389

Table 4-3

Estimated Costs for On-site Groundwater Pumping

Capital Cost

Pumping Well . $ 16,500Pump 1,600Electrical 2,000Instrumentation 83,000Monitoring Wells (3 @ $2500) 7,500

4-16

Subtotal $ 110,600

Contingency (20%) 22,200

Subtotal $ 132,800

Engineering, Administration,and Contractor Fees (20%) 26,600

Total - . $ 159,400

Annual Operation And Maintenance Costs

Maintenance $ 4,000Utilities (@ 6 cents/KWH) 5,300Labor

(7 hours/week @ $18/hour) 6,600

Subtotal . $15,900

Contingency (20%) 3,200

Total . $ 19,100

nfs '- o nu U j u

4.3 Carbon Adsorption

Over the years, granular activated carbon systems have been used

successfully for the treatment of water and wastewater conta-

minated with ,-organics. The technology and methodology tiave been

fully developed arid have.been found both dependable and reliable.

This technology involves the concentration of the pollutant onto

the carbon media. Spent carbon can be used repeatedly after

regeneration, which is normally accomplished in a furnace. In

other similar treatment facilities, this treatment process has

not generated a negative public response and has not been found

to endanger the public or .the environment.

Design of a.carbon adsorption unit involves laboratory study of

the contaminant/adsorbant equilibrium and rate behavior. The

contaminant/adsorbant equilibrium relationship dictates the -

optimum capacity achievable and is a function of the affinity

between the contaminant and the carbon. The equilibrium data can

then be used to determine the carbon dosage for a particular

treatment system. The rate behavior indicates how fast the

pollutant.is .being removed from the contaminated medium and

determines the required size (contact -time) of the carbon unit.

The proposed on-site carbon adsorption treatment system would

consist of two identical standard carbon columns as depicted in

Figure 4-8. .This arrangement will allow the lead column to be

operated to exhaustion to insure optimum use of the carbon. The

design criteria are presented in Table 4-4. The proposed system

would" be capable _qf treating the contaminated water at the rates

of 50, 100 and 200"gpm. " "~

4-17

A K i 0 0 3 9 i

QZLJOUJ

cr zLJt-UJ

CL < O——CXJ"I-

<to

O_JL.

>

<Z£ O2 OO ECO C_?

O.

kl J =Q.

O 3Em z>o: _j< Oo o

OT R!•00-c Swp B wasoE 5^ £<5<CO

I* 2Spftb!•

IICO

C3Hfe

< UJ

4-18PRC ENGINEERING

« n i U J b S 2

The two columns can be operated either in series as one system

with lead.and lag columns or in parallel as two individual

columns. Each carbon column contains approximately one truck load

(approximately 20,000 Ibs) of carbon.

An important part of the treatment process is the sampling of the

influent and effluent. Three sampling points are shown in Figure

4-8. The first sampling point is essential to determine the

groundwater concentration of TCE prior to treatment. This

information will eventually be used to determine when to termi-

nate treatment. Data -from the second sampling point will

indicate when the carbon in the first column is exhausted and

requires regeneration or replacement. The results from the third

sampling point will indicate if the effluent treatment goal is

being met. The operating data from the first column can be used

to estimate when, breakthrough will occur in the second column.

The estimate of carbon usage indicates that the carbon needs to

be replaced approximately every four months. This estimate is

based on equilibrium data from the literature (O'Brien and

Stenzel, 1984). It should be noted, however, that breakthrough

will likely occur sooner than predicted because the actual column

capacity will be less than that derived from the laboratory_study

(batch isotherm data). Hence, a more refined estimate of the

carbon's replacement, frequency can be determined when actual

operational data become available. Table 4-5 presents cost esti-

mates for the proposed' carbon'adsorption system.

4-19Mi j u'uob'3

Table 4-4

Carbon Adsorption Process Design Criteria

Column diameter ~ ; 10 ft.

Height of packing 10 ft.

Contact time 30 min.

Hydraulic loading • 2 gpm/ft2

4-20

Table 4-5

Estimated Costs for Carbon Adsorption Treatment

Capital Cost . _ . _ _ _ _ . "~ ..." M " ./";;" ' " " ".'

Adsorption Column (2 units) $ 160,000Pump (3 units) 11,000Piping _. _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . .___.__...... ... 3,000Electrical, Instrumentation . 6,000Structures . . . . . . . . _ _ . .

Holding well, Building 20,000

Subtotal - . . . - - . $ 200,000

Contingency (20%) 40,000

Subtotal $ 240,000

Engineering, Administration,and Contractor Fees (20%) 48,000

Total $ 288,000

Annual O & M Costs _ _ _

Electric-power (@ 6 cents/KWH) $ 10,000Replacement of carbon (4 cycles/year) 64,000Laboratory costs . . : - . - : .

(4 samples/month @ $300/sample) 14,400Operating labor

(10 hours/week @ $18/hour) 9,400Maintenance 3,000

Subtotal $ 100,800

Contingency (20%) 20,200

Total . . . . . . . $ 121,000

4"21 - An I 00395

4.4 Air-Stripping - _ ~ " . . " " . "

Air stripping or aeration .involves removal of volatile organic

compounds from the contaminated groundwater by transferring the

compounds into the gaseous phase. This technology has been demon-

strated to be feasible in both pilot and full scale treatment

systems for the removal of TCE from contaminated water (McCarty,

1983; O'Brien and Stenzel, 1984; McCoy and Associates, 1984).

These reports suggest that the air/water ratio can be varied to

achieve a desired removal level. As stated earlier, air strip-

ping results in the transfer of the organic contaminant from one

phase to another. Therefore, both environmental and public

health impacts must be considered. ___... _ _ . _ " .

Under, the assumptions of the maximum pumping rate (200 gpm) and

groundwater TCE concentration (4100 ppb), the maximum possible

TCE emission rate"during continuous operation is .40 Ib per hr.

Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Regulations (Pennsylvania

Code, Title 25, Chapters"121-141) list no general emission limits

for volatile-organic compounds (VOC). However, any new or modi-

fied source that emits amounts greater than 50 tons per year,

1000 pounds per day, or 100 pounds per hour is considered signi-

ficant and is subject to special permitting and emission offset

requirements _ as described in Section 127.63. Comparison of ..the

maximum possible TCE emission .rate of,., 0,40 Ib/hr-with these

levels that are considered significant suggests that air

emissions from the air stripping process will have little impact

to the environment and the public.

ARI 00396

PRC ENGINEERING . 4-23 A R I O D 3 9 7

The important "considerations for designing an air stripper include

the following:

1) Air to water ratio;2) Henry's law constant; - -3) Influent contaminant concentration;4) Desired effluent contaminant concentration or treatment

efficiency;5) Height of packing;6) Type of packing; and7) Diameter of the column.

Given, the contaminant to be removed, Henry's law constant, type of

packing, and influent and desired effluent concentrations, an air

stripping column can be designed.

A schematic diagram of the on-site areation treatment process is

shown in Figure 4-9, The proposed treatment process would

require two identical stripping columns operating in series.

Table 4--6 contains a summary of the design criteria for the on-

site-air .stripping systems at the .three pumping rates being

considered "(i.e., 50 gpm, 100 gpm, 200 gpm). Analysis of the TCE

concentration in the influent and •effluent to the stripping -

columns will be required to determine when to terminate treatment-

and, more importantly, if the treatment process is performing as

designed. Table 4-7 presents a summary of cost estimates for

the on-site air stripping systems sized for the three water flow

rates. - ^ ; - --- -'- ----- :'- - -

The following estimated costs for Installing air-strippers for

the off-site treatment systems at the contaminated Hatboro wells

were prepared by Gilmore and Associates, Inc.

4-24 ARI00398

Well Air Stripper Cost

HI, H2, H3 $200,000

H7 . 130,000

H16 . 175,000

AR1003594-25

Table 4-6

Summary of Air Stripping Process Design Criteria

Pumping Rate .. .. r : ... „.:..-> n rr,™™ -i ™200 gpm 100 efpm 50 gpmColumn Diameter.. — — - . :3ft 2.5ft l.5ft

Height of Packing - — " ~ T 20 ft : . 20 ft "" 20 ft

Air-:: wate . Ratio 3 0 ; . ! 30r. x " 30 . _

Air Flow ———— ""-•- ---- — soo s flT" "' 400 'fln "" 200 scfm

influent Concentration 4100 ppb 4100 ppb 4100 ppb

Effluent concentration <4.5 ppb <4.5 ppb <4.5 ppb

4-26

A R I O Q 4 Q Q

Table 4-7

Estimated Costs for Air Stripping Treatment

Capital Cost

Pumping Rates 200 gpm _ 100_gpm 50 gpm

Stripping column (2 units)Tower, Packing, Blower $ 70,000 $ 50.,000 $ 36,000

Pump (3 units) 10,500 .10,500 9,000Piping 3,000 3,000 3,000Electrical, Instrumentation 6,000 6,000 .6,000StructuresHolding well. Building 20,000 20,000 20,000

Subtotal $ 109,500 $ 89,500 $ 74,000

Contingency (20%) 21,900 17,900 14,800

Subtotal $ 131,400 $ 107,400 $ 88,800

Engineering, Administration,and Contractor fee (20%) 26,,300 21,500 17,800

Total $ 157,700- $ 128,900 $ 106,600

Annual O £ M Costs

Electrical power @6 cents/KWH $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $" 5,000

Laboratory costs (4 samples/month @ $300/sample) 14,400 14,400 14,400

Operating labor (10 hours/week 6 $18/hour) 9,400 9,400 9,400

Maintenance and supplies 3,000 . 3,000 3,000

Subtotal $ 36,800 $ 36,800 $ 31,800"

Contingency (20%) 7,400 7,400 6,400

Total $ 44,200 $ 44,200 $ 38,200

4.5 " - -Surface Water Discharge ,_ .. .

The effluent from the various proposed treatment unit(s) would be

suitable for discharge to a surface water. Based on existing

information, there are two potential receiving points. An

unnamed creek is located approximately 2600 feet northwest of the

site and a culvert .is located approximately 600 feet from the

site. Further investigation of the sewer system in the vicinity

of the site will be required to select the appropriate point of

discharges ~- -•-•-.:—— ^ :. ~"~ - - - '- ---~^^~ ---

In accordance ""with the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law and Chapter

92 of the Pennsylvania Water Resources Rules, an NPDES permit

will be-.required from the Department of Environmental Resources

in order to discharge the treated.groundwater to the surface

water- near ...the site. . . . - • • • • - - •

Article 3, Section 2 of the Rules 'of Practice and Procedure

(Administrative Manual - Part II)' issued by the Delaware River

Basin Commission (1981) states that "Any project which may have a

substantial effect on the water resources of the basin, ..,,

shall be submitted to the Commission for a determination as to

whether the project will have a substantial effect on the water

resources of the .basin ...". Therefore, an application to the DRBC

will also be required for surface water discharge .

The TCE concentration in the treated water is anticipated to be

4.5 ppb or.less. As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, at this

concentration there will be a reduced risk to the environment and

4'28

public health.

Discharging the treated groundwater to a surface water body

requires the installation of an effluent line from the on-site

treatment unit to the point of discharge. For cost estimation

purposes, it was assumed that the treated water can be discharged

by gravity into the culvert. Table 4-8 presents the capital

costs for installing 600 feet of discharge piping for the three

flow rates considered.

a f~- , -=- — *

A t-, i U u 4 0 3

Table 4-8

Estimated Costs for Installation of Discharge Piping to Culvert

Capital Cost _ ~_ - - - - . - - - ^^- —— -_- - •• ------- - •_ -

Pumping Rate , ., ; 2o0gpm 100gm 50gpB

Materials ... _ . _..,.. 3 9 i«n *-,«-,«Installation ' 5 2,160 $1,830 $1,470installation '5,200

Subtotal S 7,360 " ' "$6,530 "" $5Contingency (20%) 1/500 . i^oo i,'

Subtotal ....,§ 8,860 $7,830 $7,100

Engineering 5 Contractor" 1/800 " 1,570 1,400

Total $10,660 $9,400 $8,500

Note: The pipeline requires little or no maintenance; there-fore, no annual operation and.maintenance cost is provided

4~30

4.6 Reinjection of Treated Water __-

A slightly larger area of influence and contaminated groundwater

recovery can be achieved by reinjecting the pumped and treated

recovery well water at a point, for instance, midway between the

Raymark site and Hatboro well H17 (Figures 4-10 through .4-15).

The area of influence of the recovery well, under pumping/injec-

tion conditions, would be about 10 to 20 percent larger than for

the recovery well alone. The water elevations shown in Figures

4-10 through 4-15 surrounding the Raymark well and proposed

injection well were estimated by superimposing elevated-water level

data for the injection well on drawdown data for the Raymark well.

A further scenario using an effective injection/withdrawal rate

of 100 gpm and an injection well located at FP14 (Figure 1-2)

upgradient of Raymark, was also calculated.' The results of this

scenario are presented in Figures 4-16 and 4-17 for two transmis-

sivities (12,000 gpd/ft and 24,000 gpd/ft) and a contour interval

of 10 ft. The result of such an injection/withdrawal system would

be to increase the gradient toward the Raymark well, effectively

reducing the time required to decontaminate the aquifer upgradient

of Raymark. However, under these conditions there would be

essentially no effective "zone of influence" between the Raymark

site and Hatboro well H17; that is, the decontaminated zone would

be primarily upgradient of Raymark. Since this scenario does not

adequately address the source of contamination or the area of

aquifer .beneath and between the Raymark site and well H17, it is

not cons idered further.

4-31 . .._._ .A R i O u i i Q S

The costs associated with the development of the injection well

are provided in Table 4-9.

An NPDES permit from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Resources and approval from the Delaware River Basin Commission

are required for injecting the treated water back into the aquifer.

ARI00406

Table 4-9

Estimated Costs for Injection Well

Capital Cost

Gravity Injection Well . $ 16,500Piping 17,000

4-33

Subtotal $ 33,500

Contingency (20%) 6,700

Subtotal $ 40,200

Engineering, Administrationand Contractor Fee (20%) 8,000

Total $ 48,200

Annual O&M Costs

Maintenance _ , $3,300Labor (7 hours/week @ $18/hour) 6,600

Subtotal $ 9,900

Contingency (20%) 2,000

Total $ 11,900

A R 1 Q Q I . 0 7

.160= 50 gpm

T = 1?,000 gal/day/ftt = 1600 days

—— -—— -SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE" " . . . . . . .200 -WATER level ELEVATION . IOO° 20QO FEET« - HATBORO: WELL '': : ". CONTOUR INTERVAL ; _!Q1_© PROPOSE£"INJECTION WELL .. ' ......

FIGURE-4-10. Aquifer water level configuration! 1,000 daysunder;.the conditions T = 12,000 gal/day/ft, Q = sogpm, with(a recovery well(s) centered on the Raymarksite and injection well(s) located midway betweenthe Raymark site and H-17 (10 ft contourintervals).

Q = 50 gpm\eO T = 24,000 gal/day/ft

t = 1QQO days "

RAYMARK SITET'SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE . -.. £~————^——r"lBoO FEETWATER level ELEVATION : - - -

12 HATBORO WELL CONTOUR INTERVAL/0 PROPOSED INJECTION WELL ...... ' _ . -'

FIGURE 4-11. Aquifer water level configuration at 1,000 daysunder the conditions T » 24,000 gal/ day/ft, Q •= 50gpm, with a recovery well(s) centered on the Raymarksite and injection well(s) located midway betweenthe Raymark site and H-17 (10 ft contourintervals) .

4-35

Q = 100 gpmI" = 1?,000 gaf/day/ftt = 10OO days

__.._RAYMARK,— ••—— SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE200 WATER level ELEVATTON ' ~ " ' ° I00° ZDO°« HATBORCrWELl" ,._T..:. . . . _' -.-CONTOUR INTERVAL> _IQ1© PROPOSED:w " "" ™'~"1""

FIGURE 4-12. Aquifer water level configuration at 1,000 daysunder the conditions T = 12,000 gal/day/ft, Q = 100gpm, with a recovery well(s) centered on the Raymarksite and injection well(s) located midway betweenthe Raymark site and H-17 (10 ft contourintervals).

gpm000 gal/day/ft

days

- RAYMARK SITE \.._ ~" _______________—-.——-:SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE . - ;._ £ JJJ^:rToQO .FEET._?£?<? WATER level. ELEVATION ' _« HATBORO WELL CONTOUR INTERVAL-——]Q_© PROPOSED INJECTION WELL

FIGURE 4-13. Aquifer water level configuration at 1,000 daysunder the conditions T = 24,000 gal/day/ft, Q - 100gpm, with a recovery well(s) centered on the Raymarksite and injection well(s) located midway betweenthe Raymark site and H-17 (10 ft contourintervals).

4-37 A R i Q Q l j

Q - 200 gpm ,t\oT = 12,000 gal/day/ftt = 10OO days

.RAYMARK, SITE.. ...SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE200 WATER level ELEVATJON' " ° I00° 2000. FEET!? ..HATB.ORO WELL !! . _ ^ CQNTOUR INTERVAL * __!0___© - PROPOSE JN JECTJON'VVELL ! " . - . "

FIGURE 4-14. Aquifer water level configuration at 1,000 days underthe conditions T = 12,000 gal/day/ft, Q = 200 gpm,with a recovery well(s) centered on the Raymark siteand injection well(s) located midway between theRaymark site and H-17 (10 ft contour intervals).

4-38 A R 1 0 Q U 1 2

Q = 200 gpmT = 24,000 gal/day/ftt =^1000days

_______ __ RAYMARK SITE0 PROPOSED ———— SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE ; J ——————^QQ FttT

INJECTION WELL ZOO WATER level ELEVATION . . . ; . ' . . . . . _ . "= '« HATBORO WELL CONTOUR INTFRva.! .i 1Q

FIGURE 4-15. Aquifer water level configuration at 1,000 daysunder the conditions T 24,000 gal/day/ft, Q « 200gpm, with a recovery well(s) centered on the Raymarksite and injection well(s) located midway betweenthe Raymark site and H-17 (10 ft contourintervals).

Q = 100 gpmT = 12,000 gal/day/ftt = 1OOO days

SITESURFACE WATER DRAINAGE.WATER level ELEVATIONHATB;ORO WELL ' . . . . _ .FISCHER PORTER WELL #14

FIGURE..4-16.. Aquifer water level configuration at 1,000 days underthe conditions T = 12,000 gal/day/ft, Q = 100 gpm,with a recovery well(s) centered on the Raymark siteand injection well(s) located" at Fischer-Porter FP14(10 ft contour intervals).

4-40

Q = 100 gpmT = 24,000 gal/day/ftt » 10OO days

RAYMARK SITE — - ' ' .___ SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE J—————^00 2OOO FEET200 WATER leeei. ELEVATION ;tz HATBQRO WELL CONTOUR INTERVAL1 _JO-___® FISCHER PORTER WELL*W

FIGURE 4-17. Aquifer water level configuration at 1,000 daysunder the conditions T = 24,000 gal/day/ft, Q - 100gpm, with a recovery well(s) centered on the Raymarksite and injection well(s) located at Fischer-PorterFP14 (10 ft contour intervals).

• f l f i l O O i . 1 5

4.7 Closure Plan and Post-Closure Monitoring .Plan

Implementation of any of ~the~proposed remedial actions with the

exception of the no action alternative requires continuous

monitoring during and after the remedial activities.

The following is a description of a closure and post-closure

monitoring plan which can be implemented at the site.

o Two upgradient wells should be installed in off-site

locations in order to monitor the water,quality of

the groundwater before it flows under the site.

One well should be located south of the site and the . ..

other east of the site. • These wells can be sampled

once a month to provide.groundwater background

information. If the treated water is reinjected into

the aquifer, a third monitoring well should be

installed between the injection well and Hatboro well

H-17 to monitor the water quality downgradient of the

barrier... - - " ......_...... .._-—--,---- ------ -----

o "Each month, two sets of samples should be collected

and analyzed for TCE concentrations. Each set of the

samples should, consist of a sample of untreated influent to

the air. stripper and a sample of treated effluent froin

the air stripper.. The average concentrations of the

respective samples will be the. monthly TCE concentra- .

tions for-the influent and effluent. If the monthly

concentrations of TCE in the infuent falls to or below

"42 R n I n r, I f rflR 1 Guk 1 b

4.5 ppb for twelve consecutive months, on-site treatment

can stop. However, monthly sampling to determine TCE

concentrations at the monitoring wells between the

injection well and H-17 should continue to determine

the effectiveness of the remedial activities. These

monitoring activities should continue for 30 years.

4-S Cost Analysis

Each proposed remedial action alternative is composed of three of

the five treatment technologies that were discussed in the

previous sections. The estimated costs for construction, opera-

tion and maintenance for these treatment technologies were iden-

tified in their respective sections. Sources of cost information

include equipment manufacturers, technical literature, and Means

cost data (1985).

These costs were used to compute the present worth of each alter-

native. The capital cost for each alternative is the sum of the

capital costs of the individual selected treatment technologies.

However,"the operation and maintenance cost for each alternative

is not the total of the 0 & M costs of the treatment technolo-

gies. The labor requirement for each alternative was evaluated

to insure optimum utilization of operators and maintenance

personnel. For all alternatives, labor requirements were

reduced to reflect economies of scale.

Since air stripping columns have already been purchased by the

Authority for three of the Hatboro contaminated wells, the cost

4-43

OR i nnu 7

estimates for the off-site treatment did not include capital

costs for these three air strippers. However, an estimated

annual operation, and maintenance cost was included for the

recurring costs to decontaminate the drinking water supply.

In computing the present worth of the annual operation and main-

tenance costs/ a 15 year project life was assumed with no net

salvage value and a discount rate of 10 percent. These costs are

order-of-magnitude estimates with an accuracy of_+50 percent.

The costs for -the ten alternatives on a present worth basis are

presented in Table 4-10. Capital .costs were assumed to be

incurred at the beginning of the first year and 0 & M costs paid

at the end of each year.

4-44

^ f i i O u ^ i f f

Table 4-10 . _ .

Remedial Alternatives Cost Analyses

Alternative 1

No Action . $ .0

Alternative 2 __

On-Site, Pumping/AerationTreatment/Discharge To Surface Water

Capital Costs _

Flow Rate 200 gpm 100 gpm 50 gpm

Pumping $159,400 $159,400 $159,400Aeration 157,700 128,900 106,600Discharge To Surface Water 10,700 9,400 8,500

Total $327,800 $297,700 $274,500

Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs _ , . „ _ _ , .

Utilities $ 15,300 $ 15,300 $ 10,300Laboratory Analyses 14,400 14,400 14,400Maintenance 7,000 7,000 7., 000Labor 9,400 9,400 9,400

Subtotal $ 46,100 $ 46,100 $ 41,100

Contingency (20%) 9,200 9,200 8,200

Total $'55,300 $ 55,300 $"49,300

Present Worth O & M Costs(15 years £ 10 percent) $420,600 $420,600 $375,000

Total Present Worth $748,400 $718,300 $649,500

4-45 o w i n f: T. i Q

Table 4-10, continued

Alternative'. 3

On-Site, Pumping/AerationTreatment/Reinjection

Capital Costs __ __ , _____ .,; __.__,.._. ,_.-. .._..,» .......

Flow Rate ., 200 gpm 100 gpm 50 qpm

Pumping „ . — _"-._-. :__.;. "__._ r$i59,400 $159,400 $159,400Aeration 157,700 128,900 106,600Reinjection 48,200 48,200 48,200

Total : - - - - - - """$365,300 $336,500 $314,200'

Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs

Utilities - " $ 15,300 $ 15,300 $ 10,300Laboratory Analyses. ^ 14,400 14,400 14,400Maintenance - -10,300 10,300 10,300Labor : . . . - • : - : 9,400 9,400 9,400

Subtotal —$ 49,400 $ 49,400 $ 44,400

Contingency (20%) 9,900 $ 9,900 $ 8,900

Total -:$ 59,300 $ 59,300 ' $ 53,300

Present.Worth O & M Costs(15.years"©.10 percent) . $451,000 $451,000 $405,400

Total Present Worth - $816,300 $787,500 $719,600Value -" -,---- =s==s=!==c==s= ._—————— ___....

4-46

f i R i 00^20

Table 4-10, continued

Alternative 4 _ _ _ _ .. . _

Off-Site, Pumping/AerationTreatment/Discharge ToWater Distribution System

Capital Costs

Air Strippers for^1'Hatboro Well 1, 2, 3 $200,000Hatboro Well 7 130,000Hatboro Well 16 175,000

Total $405,000

Hatboro Borough has purchased air strippers for wells12, 14 and 17. Therefore, no capital costs for theseunits were included in this cost estimate.

Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs _ _ __

Utilities (6 units @ $1200/month each) $ 86,400Laboratory Analyses (6 units @ $25OO/ .._ . 15,000

year each)Maintenance (6 units @ $3000 each) 18,000Labor (6 hours per week per unit @ $18/hr) 33,700

Subtotal $ 153,100

Contingency (20%) 30,600

Total $ 183,700

Present Worth O & M Costs(15 years @ 10 percent) $1,397,200

Total Present Worth Value — --— $1,802,200

(1) Capital costs are based on estimates prepared by Gilmore &Associates, Inc. for the Hatboro Borough Authority in August,1983.

Table 4-10, continued

Alternative' 5

On-Site, Pumping/Aeration Treatment/Discharge to Surface Water; Off-Site,Pumping/Aeration Treatment/DischargeTo Water Distribution System

Capital Costs _._..,„__„„.„., ... ,,-_ ,.._--,..,.,„-,.. . ...... .

Flow Rate - ~- - —— 200" gpm ."" 100 gpm 50 gpm

Pumping _, " " $159,400 $159,400 $159,400Aeration*1' 562,700 533,900 511,600Discharge To Surface Water ; 10,700 9,400 8,500

Total : --"'• $732,800 * $702,700 $679,500

Annual Operation and Maintenance costs

Utilities ; $ 101,700 $ 101,700 $ 96,700Laboratory Analyses 29,400 29,400 29,400Maintenance _ : .25,000, 25,000 25,000Labor -..I..,-:..--- ^"""--- — — -"43,100 43,100 43,100

Subtotal -- --$199,200 " " $ 199,200 $ 194,200

Contingency (20%) 39,800 39,800 39,000

Total _- $ 239,000 " $ 239,000 ?233,200

Present Worth 0 & M Costs(15 years""@^10 percent) $1,818,000 $1,818,000 $1,774,000

Total Present Worth $2,550,800 $2,520,700 $2,453,500T7-* T 11 n — • _ - ._ - ——4 ^ —. ^ -. ^ ^__-_______—______ -

(l) Capital costs for the air strippers for Hatboro wells 1, 2, 3, 7and 16 are included.

4-48

Table 4-10, continued

Alternative 6

On-Site, Pumping/Aeration Treatment/Reinjection; Off-Site, Pumping/AerationTreatment/Discharge To Water DistributionSystem

Capital Costs • .

Flow Rate 200 gpm 100 gpm 50 gpm

Pumping $159,400 $159,400 $159,400Aerationt1) 562,700 533,900 511,600Reinjection 48,200 48,200 48,200

Total $770,300 $741,500 $719,200

Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs __ .. _

Utilities $ 101,700 $ 101,700 $ 96,700Laboratory Analyses 29,400 29,400 29,400Maintenance 28,300 28,300 28,300Labor 43,100 43,100 ._ 43,100

Subtotal $ 202,500 $ 202,500 $ 197,500

Contingency (20%) 40,500 40,500 39,500

Total $ 243,000 $ 243,000 $ 237,000

Present Worth 0 & M Costs(15 years © 10 percent) $1,848,000 $1,848,000 $1,803,000

Total Present Worth $2,618,300 $2,589,500 $2,522,200V cL^ LL& ^ ^ —* «-*—_ _™,_,_— ^ ^ -i ~

(1) Capital costs for the air strippers for Hatboro wells 1, 2, 3, 7and 16 were included.

4-49 _ ,- -., 00A r. 1 u J 4 2 3

Table 4-10, continued .

Alternative .7 _. .. . ...—_.„...-_.

On-site, Pumping/Carbon AdsorptionTreatment/Discharge To Surface Water

Capital Costs ......,.„.____...._. .._... - . ... .u.__ _._.._ z . . ..

Flow Rate - ; 200 gpm 100 gpm 50 gpm

Pumping $159,400 $159,400 $159,400Carbon Adsorber .- = 288,000 288,000 288,000Discharge To Surface Water • 10,700 9,400 8,500

Total $458,100 $456,800 $455,900

Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs

Utilities $ 15,300Laboratory Analyses 14,400Maintenance 7/000Carbon Replacement " - "64,000Labor ._..__il_...: " -: .: - 9,400

Subtotal .... - - $ 110,100

Contingency (20%) 22,000

Total $ 132,100

Present Worth 0 & M Costs(15 years @ 10 percent) " $1,005,000 $1,005,000 $1,005,000

Total Present Worth $1,463,100 ... $1,461,800 $1,460,900

The same annual operation and..maintenance costs apply to thecarbon treatment systems for flow rates of 200, 100 and 50 gpm.

Table 4-10, continued

Alternative 8

On-S ite, Pumping/CarbonAdsorption Treatment/Reinjection

Capital Costs

Flow Rate 200, 100 and 50 gpm

Pumping $159,400Carbon Adsorber 288,000Reinj ection 48,200

Total $495,600 .

Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs

Utilities $ 15,300Laboratory Analyses 14,400Maintenance 10,300Carbon Replacement 64,000Labor . 9,400

Subtotal $ 113,400

Contingency (20%) 22,600

Total $ 136,000

Present Worth O & M Costs(15 years @ 10 percent) $1,034,400

Total Present Worth $1,530,000Value =========5=

4-51 - : - _ .*,• n i — -• t r\ r~wri t uu-~i-25

Table 4-10, continued

Alternative 9 _„_- _-~. _.,.-._._.-..; -,:.- ..•---___,_____, ._; ._...,.- ... --- - .- ---

On-Site, Pumping/Carbon AdsorptionTreatment/Discharge To Surface Water;Off--Site, Pump ing/Aeration Treatment/Discharge To Water Distribution System

Capital Costs - ;..__„- .-. . ,.,, _-_:.-\. .: .-.-.: ..-..-.. .- - • —- —

Flow Rate 200 gpm 100 gpm 50 gpm

Pumping * $159,400 $159,400 $159,400Carbon Adsorber : 288,000 288,000 288,000Discharge To Surface Water : 10,700 9,400 8,500Aeration 405,000 405,000 405,000

Subtotal. . . . . . . $ 263,200

Contingency (20%) 52,600

Total ...--—..-.-—- .-$863,100 $861,800 $860,900

Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs

Utilities - _ . _ . . _ . ' _ _ . . . _ . $ -101,700Laboratory Analyses 29,400.Maintenance . . „ , —-. - 25,000Carbon Replacement 64,000Labor - •--'- - 43,100

Total - , .: - $ 315,800

Present Worth O & M Costs(15 -years @ 10 percent) $2,402,000 $2,402,000 $2,402,000

Total .Present Worth $3,265,100 $3,263,800 $3,262,900

The same annual operation and maintenance costs apply to thecarbon treatment systems for flow'rates of 200, 100 and 50 gpm..

... -,,,,.U 0 '^ i 6

Table 4-10, continued

Alternative 10

On-Site, Pumping/Carbon AdsorptionTreatment/Reinjection; Off-Site, Pumping/Aeration Treatment/Discharge To WaterDistribution System

Capital Costs

Flow Rate 200,100 and 50 gpm

Pumping $ 159,400Carbon Adsorbers 288,000Reinjection 48,200Aeration 405,000

Total $ 900,600

Annual Operation and Maintenance -Costs

Utilities $' 101,700Laboratory Analyses 29,400Maintenance 28,300Carbon Replacement 64,000Labor -43,100

Subtotal $ 266,500

Contingency (20%) 53,300

Total 319,800

Present Worth O & M Costs(15 years @ 10 percent) $2,432,000

Total Present Worth $3,332,600Value ==========

4.9 Summary of Alternative Analyses

The summary of analyses, for.-the proposed alternatives is

presented in Table 4-11 which can readily be used to compare the

alternatives. The findings can be summarized in the followingmanner. _ . - . . . . . . . . . ....... ..... ;-. •- -

1. Except for the no action alternative, each remedial

alternative would reduce public health threat to a certain degree.

For the alternatives examined, public health risks would be

reduced to the greatest extent when treatment of the contaminated

groundwater,is performed both on-site and off-site.

2. For the no action alternative, ingestion of TCE contaminated

water ..poses a significant concern regarding the potential adverse

impacts of TCE on the health of the affected population. The

other..remedial alternatives would result in decontaminating the

groundwater and/or retarding any further migration of TCE

contaminated groundwater.

3. The appropriate treatment technologies include aeration and

carbon adsorption, which have proven to be both dependable and

reliable. " Either the aeration or carbon adsorption system can

meet the treatment requirements, hence, the choice between the

two depends solely on economics.

4. Except for the no action alternative, the anticipated public

responses, to the.other alternatives range from marginally accept-

able to highly acceptable. Since ,the overall objectives are to

4~54 ARS'00^28

decontaminate the groundwater and curtail the migration of TCE

contaminated groundwater, the remedial alternative which calls for

(1) pumping the groundwater on-site, along with treatment by

either air stripping or carbon adsorption, and reinjection into

the aquifer and (2) treatment of the water from the Hatboro

contaminated water wells by air stripping will most likely be

highly acceptable to the public. The public response to the

other alternatives will most likely range from moderately accep-

table to marginally acceptable depending on the degrees to which

the respective alternatives can meet the overall -objectives.

ARiCCi.29

r

cy)LU

1-

Z

UJ

IkP- 0T z^ si »fc 103 Jrtf *•- 1 •u

HI-Sh-

U.O

ee.^z3

aUIi ^<a.k»4o""( — 'z<

_1<uX3=-uUJ»-

<"S"

IRON

HE

xLU

_J

UJ-E

CJ

.—103

a-

OOo

1— -</>o0

UJenOa.LUQ£

>"t—«-•23 ---EZOCJ

MzQ£UJuOCJ

.._. _

CERM

S

oCJ

za:u. .o°

^0. •

a.<o .

UJ>•"• -*—*czQiLU1—^

0)^.Q(B4-»aO -U<J<D

.. C".3

"

UJT3 0SJ ***C <+-•<- O

c c0 0CJ —

z raO t~— > U)

< E

LU(J1—

O— oCD4J <u•a uO 3O cf>0 OCO Q_C" " k=5 Ot

•C -o..."••—4-*U(U

~ o-E

----- ———

- • '-X.— .

_.._.. (U- c

•: '. . -"diC_--- • ~ to

' ac

£, o

<n<u

. _.. ... o£

i- - . . O.OJ .C

« ~~ " L

TJ. C ' :!»

-0 ..... .LlQ_f-r I_

' : cc :- o

D)c - - : .. i"~ «

c - - ~oj-- t- ETt --

M

' CO • •—

Q. 4>' :"ut- JJ (_-C ffl .34-* 3 - O

Oi *O

"1 .CNJ

.. . "4y._ . .. -.--3.O"

;"{V, E. 3a.

——

,OJ

- -_, :

-Q.CD4D. ,0>uu"*

enO

C O01 C'

- O (J£_ CJa 4--

C :j_

-UJ-CJ_ . ..*—"W ~ i:

o Ta'"4- -a'03 C«- 3LO) O.~ t_

_ .E • .ca ^4J C-C 3O O(J . c-

O)>0 _"O,

_p ro.4J •— ""

CO COT— ^J -

00 COO OJOJ «

C-a> .4103

OJ-a 4--c .--.3. «o .C- CUi O

- '

>,. 1<uu

- <oC_-

" "o"".TO,o-C.

o'.:. w;

.... 01Q.

-

; „ . . __ _ , .-Jt si^E '

_ ——— - _^3!

"in". ..;P

- " ." c ;---o ,o ,

1) - ' ,.C l-_ ---. ID4 OJ t.

4- " O)ft- O a :— ,OJ _C 3 ETJ * • * - - - " ".•;c a> to3 0 C • --"T

4-> 4J •-- CL, . _ t- ,TO •- t_ 3 .3.3 « -O W O

. . ..•_-.. o ,: " . . _ ...:... (M

-, - ' --:- *1M

i-O 0>4 4-

fflH 4> 3

X c on 4^.Q O t- flJ 3

-™- « o o*J 4-» .c <003 OS O ** "O.0» i- o] (- EU" - «* i- 3 34-> <a 13 a> a.

- f'4)^_» ^

_Q03-ua.4)uu

c"OJ

o1_a.

c

UJot—

t~~bc..o

(_D)

E

iE01

c._o .o4-oco,..4-<

CO00N-

S-.

m"

c_4)4JCB3

-DC3 •O(_CD

. _. _

D)O

Oco<t>

.--.- -un

dwat

i

oD)

- oj• JZ? 4C3 . t_P... 4>

0) C3

T3

4J 0)03 4JC 10•— at

•o03

in - -M

O4)L. C4J, O

« 4-1O (D4-> C_^ 0)CQ a•C '>-0 -Q

- ----- ~

- - - -y

. _ . — . .. ^O

(Q0-

^..... O

co

,:.:;::;_.,!.!o

. _. L .41

.. *J

- ~=1=---- 3

^ = -1

C-. -., O

u

[_. . . 0

JJ ~ — <01 03 .. -A-=.. 3. . .. jg4J f>

O)o . c •; «4- ' >. 0>

J^ — p ... o0 C Q." 34- •— Q. T3— - ft. 3 4)ffl "D « M

Oeo

tfto-d-

o*JC^

*-• 4-10 . 3a; ~u o-. d--c 3 a- 0 E4) t- 3(- D) ...

TUpcao_0)u

*

D>O

C 001 C•> .eO 0(- 0*Q. 4->

EraC • 4-1— i- C

(D Oui *j oCJ C -T

1- — EQ

O t- 4- O4J 4->

C 4-1 UJ • —O CD CJ en— 3 l-4- TJ -Offl c cn o><- 3 4-> 4->a> o D. (c—— - L. Q) CE ro o —

•*-o

o4-1 4-> Ol03 Cni v rtc- tfl-C — C4J i_ (0 •

-C-O

— ' (J «<n c ca t-<U rtJ OJ tUJT 0 — Q.

t- OCJ *J4J

3 0) X C 0)4J J3 O *-

*o *•— *~ CDc w 4-> 4- e_3 ' (D <D U 0)o H- o> t- cn 4JU H- l_ 41 — COro o 4J «j "D 3:

Co,,3JDL.4-)m

"°

4-56 A R i O Q i j S O

•of31

5!c!0]

1— 1

•ijej|Sit-»l

a.UI

O B£UJt- >-< t-a. —*— • zU 5— Z1- Z-E O< U

_)< trtu a:•v of-E UI-E UU SEu. Ot- CJ

_t<t—SELU

3E 3£O asOf U.

> aeLU U

t—_iUJSE V>

\ «

! 3i Bi X 4-.i — Q.

: H o; „ (J£ •«

XC 0»0 0

•M C 063 O C— > _C— O Oa> t. eat Q. 4-1

t_ L. -J

t 0 "«3 O (3

C T3 C

— — S O

w f! 2 —C D> Q. O

O S 0 4J

U J^—— 4J «

-O e [- «Q. -C «- *-•

4J U

€) >. 4)—* —• —jQ — -Qa , to to

>. 4-. C4--—• a. — a.j= c o) ojm o t _ o

X , >.C DJ C C!>o o 0 6M C Q . ! W C O4 ) V C Ol O C— > .*= - -- - : - — > - .c— ' O U -* O O

M c_ 3

C 4-1» 6 TO

O 4> E • O 4 - T Jt_ m co (o L. , i_ (0 c4-1 I_ *J 4J 4) 4 J U 3c ra o. c 4-r - "c ra oo •— « o e o— £-O E O 0 3 O E 01

" - 4 J W C , < 0 " D 4 - I O >—' eo «- C • O ) 4 J C 4-<J3 flj t_ no • • - C 3 C - U C D

*J O) M O) C D)X 1 M O W I - . eft. U M t- -; _*• •*-.-- - 3-O C-- -

i — u i t o u e o Q . -' o *-> to di o. ' ra 4>c. j«: —-— I O J 3 — «—— — D _ . o _ f - - - - • 4 - > C 4 J - <S aj C Q.m a i ' D O o "Da 41 . u o a> 4-* 4^ *^ a.=3 Oa. u

C ... ... - O J O M - O C --; - 3 — C <B — C. 3O . 0 £ . E O 4 - > O O 4J «•- -3 - (0 "O

OJO4OJ

^3 t*i h^ o*1 OJ o _ - - *o r*^ coCO O PO - Sf IA IA l/*l

- 4->t- .= O • O t-

< - . o e i o x t _ 4 - > X ' X ( _ < u . o a t** C ,__(B (00 ** C — - D O . '4J « - » + * " " C 03O « 8 . » - U 3 t - X > B J R I - C O . ' > < 0 C O < 0 3*-• 3 a t x c a i oj (n >— *-" i aj >-. c; v ra 3 •— +j 3 - o — d>

3 « u ^ o c_ aj 4J 4J 3 0) 4-1 J2 O b tfl - 4-> 3 OJ i *J (_ (D

C * QQ ^ 4 T* -- S3 3 ^ O C *~- t/1 4 4 ' C L* 4* ftf C ' TO C. *~ CDQ . 3 M < a t S U H * Q . Q . Q . 3 _ 3 i a n 3 C 3 V 4 ^ a . Q . 3 4 . O O O H -

3 t. c •*- u o •=__? cam r - t - c * - t _ < u < J } t . f u x o j 3 t. c >. TJ «- 3Q . O » O O * J - 3 T . S « i f i S ( f l £ - , Q . O l O O 4 - i < D t _ c n 3 « ^ O- Ol O JD S3 "O W

4-57 AR 10043

w

•0141)31Cl— 14-1CJ01UI

t• l

"i

vt—1-QJroti-l

UJ

XoQ.toUI

Q CsLUJ1- >-< V-Q. «-<

0 3— £

Z O "< (J.

»-i -«t tOu. z— ee-E UJ= - cju a:UI Oi- (J

_j

zUIZ C/)z zO Cfc -*— t (J

Z Oui u

zt—— iUIa= toz

u o;« ui-I Om zra oQ. O —

0 3- -o0 0.%

5to o.o «c0 U _.

UJ

1— --zceUJ1——J

, — . . ' - . -X O . ._ -,, ,--=-... ,. __. ————— -4, •• - - - _.._.._. _——f ^- _- - - - - - - ---._. -.. — .-- .... . ; . . . . . .

TO TO .QC *-• : X TO— a . - . -_,. 4-.O> 4) _c, Q. . ... . . ._ . . _. ._t- 0 D. oiTO 0 —— 0Z < : 35 «_; - - - - - -

^ - >• , . X - -, . . . .c cn - - - . — £?_ b> .,--.o .a o1" o - - ~:- -co c "o " - "" -" "-_-«" c ~o" ^ - --- -- j --j •.-- — - - ---': -"T -- 41 <U C : ~ ~ "«" S> C - . . - . . . . . __i ... ._....... .

— • O U " ,_ o O01 {_ 0 0) [_ _,OS Q. 4J - !=-_: K Q_ ^ - - - - - - - - - - - - . _ - - . .

- • '_._..._. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. - .--.= - — _: - - - . - ---_ - _ _. ----- - M c - J -....-_.

I- UJ t_ L ~o O _ - _ . . -^ -..-----—-a* u , • a> oi __ c_ • '____: .- .. :--=.;.-: -.e: 43- w bi "" " ' ""

_ t- n- *_,.-—-" O T3 J- : . . . . - - -- -3 0 L. 43,, u 5 - - - -H- 0) W" - 4Jc 4^ _._..T.._. _.__._ -::c ^, ra . . . . . .c o o . a . t o o c c ' .._....— •- •— 3 • • - - - - .i;'.— a •— ": -~ - - . ' - - - - -• ..?..- —O 4 J T J . ""jO4-" B • - • - - . . - - -£ « c •_. • -- - '.:•'.* w TO t. "" ""• -•4 - " * - 3 — 4 J t _ 4 J 4 J < UC O J O C ,,01 Q. C 4J0 ••_ i- O •- V O (0 'U E O) — .. — .- O E U O 3 , -

. ,*. . . . . - - -. i flj - - o ___ .w E < -e ..._t-- --O ' bL. to u 4-1 a> •;— *j 4-1 oj . . . . ^D) 4J C . /-4->; .^- i.TO . C -~"~ C 3 L;. o> TO J2 01 oe o o o ^. 3 . --- 3 ; (- «o c_. -0 4-*-- » a. .e ..- cM CM c - m : - . - :•*. c_ ai— "- 3 O C i ' - W ""•"" ') .'- o TJ 4 .- x - o ^ c_ 4rf o - ~; '- - '- - -- "to 01 t_ . jd._ - o *j 4> r- - - - ' - ' . " - . :4-J C .-w-OJ 0 c.-Q. . 3-1-." U. w ._ . • ; ..,.,. . . -.-.. ° -ro- ** ^ •-— Q- . Ti. ,,co c to t. - , • .-----3 •— C TO '— c_ r 3 43 01 OS 01 01 - , - .._... .C J 4 J - — 3 - W "D ' fl) O£ .n-!- o — ' Q. ' ".-- -

M , -O -O -O" CM t\J OJ^ «, - ^- ^ . . . . . . " " "__ .__._^_ .__. ._ M M ^

^ ' <- C\j" Mt^ - -, - ^O *Q *^O ""•<r ^ -.- - --:.,.. ^-^--03 Tco eo - . - . , . ,-.-,_. .. ,. ,.,

« o- - - - - - - I - L: ' 2 !i in r. c *-'• - •- • <u TO^^ - « _....._ ........ TO 0 41 t_ 0 X.,s"g — -- •"••^' --§--i" 3-:.§:r

SJ*. « 3 r o" . 33^^ * ? » S S 5 ^ ? =0 "i .- TO •£• .1.1 p-?'.t: 4. S £-2"fi .*» -a - - < - « . s.Q. 3 c. o o c- = _5 'o. 3-« c .0 o "5 «£ fi. § - ? - S o a "1 S ^ x --S :;;==£: -li 2 c £ !s -S 5 ^- 1- £ r ->; ." S 2La^wo^j B. i_ o) a - a i 0 4 - o TO-a w a r o o ^ - o 3 weo - — -, --.:-{>. - - - . . : — - ;

0)... " ~"&

TOX 4-— a.^ OJtn oi— o2= <:

-xC D>0 0

— -*M C O

. « Q> C— > -C '— -o oo L. aid£ Q. 4

Tj. W C

' — 3t- c- O O41 41 t- £_-c 4J 4-1 cn4- C C1_ ._ .. o T.3 O CD4- 4J

C u m- M O C C "— ---•*— (0 «O 4J E >t- oi M TO e_"c a> a C- 4-O «- 4> o aso e u o 3

... ..-o0 O"- 4J 4J (Uj co CT^ 4> j«f O3 • L. Ma .c — c

*J 1- TO

-. a* .c e, 4-- oO 4-1 O r— --3 — • 0 W"D CO C CO t-"<0 QJ TO OJ atfl£ J= 0 — Q.

toN1

«

T—Oo

T5CTO

C-41 C+* 0

- *-< (0 * X —3 I -J _Q 4-.O -O 4-> CO.

C -^ 4-> O t-Q. 3 « to J3 Oe o . oi u M3 t- C t- TO •_]O. O) O 4-i o ffl

o

s41

(0t- 4- "O X41 TO C "w

o 4 ai TO4J Q. TO C- , O XC E 3 4J C V —— 3-D O •- "Q.

Q. C .- — 4) Q.4-« 3 Ot 4-> 01 3O .» O 4J ra C- (fl<U *O C- •— I_ <g— i C O> W 41 _C C_C 3 ' "ffl O Q)—— O 4- M- W 4->41 C- 3 •+- X — (DC- Ol O O -Q 'B 3

4-58 AR I OOU32

LIST OF REFERENCES

Aitken, Robin (1982). Technical Section of Case DevelopmentPlan for Milford Rivet (PA-431).

Bear, J., (1979)„ Hydraulics of Groundwater. McGraw-Hill, Inc.,Israel.

Betz-Converse-Murdoch Inc., (1982). Lette'r report to Ms. SusanL. Gordon, Esquire, Morgan Lewis and Bockius.

Delaware River Basin Commission (1981). Administrative Manual-Part II, Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Delaware River Basin Commission (1982). Ground Water ProtectedArea Regulations Southeastern Pennsylvania.

Dreish, R., (1984). November 26 Letter to D.K. Donnelly, EPARegion 3.

Gilmore & Associates, Inc. (1982). Report on the Estimated TotalCosts For the Removal of Volatile Organic Compounds.

Greenman, D.W., (1955). Ground water resources of Bucks County,Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Department of Internal Affairs,Topographic and Geol. Surv. Bull. W-ll.

Hall, G.M., (1934). Ground water in southeastern Pennsylvania,Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Topographicand Geol. Surv. Bull. W-2.

Luborsky, P.G., (1984). A hydrogeologic study of a part of theStockton Formation, Montgomery and Bucks Counties, Pennsylvania.M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Geology, University of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Luborsky, P.G. and B. Molholt (1985). Raymark Site Hydrogeologicand Toxicologic Assessment.

McCarty, P.L., (1983). Removal of Organic Substances from Waterby Air Stripping, In: Control of Organic Substances in Water andWastewater, EPA-600/8-83-011, USEPA, Washington, D.C.

McCoy & Associates, (1984). The Hazardous Waste Consultant, Vol.12, No. 6.

Means, R.S. Co., Inc., (1985). Building Construction Cost Data43rd Annual Edition, Kingston, MA.Morris, J.C. and J.F. Donovan (1983). The Impact of OrganicSubstances on Municipal Wastewater Reuse, In: Control of OrganicSubstances in Water and Wastewater, EPA-600/S-83-011, USEPA,Washington, D,C.

5-1 f i R I O

NUS Corp., (1985). A Field Trip Report For Raymark, PreparedUnder TDD No. 8401-02, EPA No. PA-678, Contract No. 68-01-6699.

O'Brien, R.P and M.H. Stenzel (1984). Combining GranularActivated. Carbon and Air Stripping, Public Works, December.

Rima, D.R., Meisler, H., and Longwill, S., (1962). Geology andHydrology _of the Stockton Formation in southeastern Pennsylvania,Pennsylvania Department of Internal Affairs, Topographic andGeol. Surv. Bull. W-14.

Schwarzenbach, R.P. and J. Westall (1981). Transport of Non-Polar Organic Compounds from Surface Water to Groundwater,Laboratory Study, Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 15,PP.- 3_60-367. _ . . " -

Sloto, R.A. and Davis, O.K., (1983). Effect of Urbanization onthe Water Resources of Warminster Township, Bucks County,Pennsylvania, U.'S. Geol. Surv. Water Resources Investigation 82-4020.

SMC-Martin Environmental Consultants (1980). HydrogeologicStudy of Fischer and Porter Company and vicinity, WarminsterTownship, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Report prepared for Fischer.and Porter Company, Warminster, Pennsylvania.

Theis, C.V./"(1935). The relation between the lowering of thepiezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of awell using -ground water, storage, Trans. Amer. Geophy. Union, 2,pp. 519-524.' ! •

U.S. EPA, (1985), office-of Drinking Water Health Advisory forTrichloroethylene.

Walker/ R., (1979). November 27 Letter to Joseph Armao, Esquire,EPA, Region UI. -

Walter_B. Satterthwaite Associates, Inc., (1981). investigationof test well sites, Hatboro Borough, Montgomery County,Pennsylvania, Report prepared for Hatboro Water Authority,Hatboro, Pennsylvania.

Wassersug, S,, (1982). November 30 Memo to Peter N. Bibko,Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.

5"2 AR.OQL.3U