Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
I SDMS DocID 2102818
CRATER RESOURCES SUPERFUND SITE
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY
QUARRY 3
SURFACE WATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
F:\OFICEAGC\PROJECTS\Files\200l-847\2008\Repons\5-22-08-Q3 Feasibility Sludy-rcvl doc AR306533
Focused Feasibility Study
Surface Water Treatment and Disposal
Quarry 3 (OU-3) Crater Resources Superfund Site
Upper Merion Township, Montgomery County, PA
Prepared for Crater Resources Participating Respondent Group
Prepared By Advanced GeoServices Corp.
West Chester, PA
P.E. Project Manager
Project Number 2001-847-15
Rev. 1, May 23, 2008
F:\OFICEAGC\PROreCTS\Filcs\2001-847\200S\Rcpons\5-22-08-Q3 Feasibility Study-rev 1 doc AR306534
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose 1 1.2 Justification for Revision of the Alternative 2. 1.3 Site Background Information 2 1.4 Site Investigations ; 3
1.4.1 Quarry 3 Soils 4 1.4.2 Plateau Area 4 1.4.3 Pond Sediment 4 1.4.4 Pond Water 4
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 6 2.1 Off-Site Transportation and Disposal 6 2.2 On-Site Treatment and Off-Site Discharge 6
3.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES : 9 3.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 9 3.2 Compliance with ARARS 9 3.3 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment 10 3.4 Short Term Effectiveness 11 3.5 Implementability 11 3.6 Cost 13 3.7 State Acceptance 13 3.8 Community Acceptance 13
4.0 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE TO ROD REMEDY 14
5.0 REGULATORY PROCESS 16
6.0 REFERENCES 17
TABLES TABLE
1-1 Pond Surface Water Volume 3-1 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARS) 3-2 Cost Comparison of Alternatives
F\OFICEAOaPROJECTS\Filcs\2001-847\2008\Rcpons\5-27.O8-FFS-TOCs(ioc
AR306535
TABLE OF CONTENTS Tcontinued)
APPENDICES
APPENDIX .
A Sediment Removal Plan Phase I B PADEP WQBEL Discharge to Matsunk Creek C Surface Water Quality Data D Letter From Upper Merion Township Public Works E Description of Water Treatment System F Discharge Pipe Alignment G Creek Discharge Calculations/Evaluation
F\OFlCEAGaPROJECTS\FilcsUl)(ll-847U008\FFS TOCs\FFS.doc
AR306536
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Crater Resources Superfund Site (Site) is located in Upper Merion Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, approximately 10 miles northwest of Philadelphia. The lead agency is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency'(USEPA). The USEPA is supported by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). This document presents a focused feasibility study (FFS) for the management of surface water from Quarry 3 of the Crater Resources Superfund Site. This document is intended to support an explanation of significant differences (ESD) to the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Site to be issued in accordance with Section 117(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended, (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9617(c) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan (NCP), Section 300.435(c)(2)(i). If is important to note that while this FFS modifies the original approach presented in the ROD for surface water, there is no change to the actual outcome as originally contemplated in the ROD with respect to scope, performance and environmental protection.
1.1 PURPOSE
The original Feasibility Study (FS) for the Site was prepared and submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III in 1999. An evaluation of alternatives for surface water disposal was not conducted in that FS (ERM, 2000) because surface water was not considered a site waste and the removal of surface water was only considered a preparatory activity, to be performed prior to the actual remedial activity (sediment removal from the three ponds). Off-site hauling and disposal of surface water was simply assumed only for costing purposes in the FS (ERM, 2000). The ROD included off-site disposal of surface water as part of the remedy because it was the only method for surface water disposal discussed in the FS.
The original FS document presented broad-brush remedies for several separate areas of the entire Site. In that context, the removal of surface water from the Quarry 3 ponds was considered a minor implementation issue and was not thoroughly evaluated. It was simply assumed that the water would be transported by truck for off-site disposal. During the preparation of the Remedial Design, it became apparent that off-site transportation and disposal would be extremely difficult, time consuming and costly and would add another level of disruption to the surrounding community. The purpose of this FFS is to conduct a comparative analysis of an alternate method of surface water management versus the approach described in the ROD.
This FFS presents a detailed evaluation of the ROD required off-site disposal method for surface water, since it had not been done previously, and the proposed on-site treatment method, against the nine evaluation criteria set forth in the NCP. This FFS also includes
F:\OFlCEAGC\PROJECTS\Files\2001-847\2008\Repons\5-22-08-Q3FeasibilityStudy-revl.doc
-1-AR306537
a summary of the site history, previous investigation work and the selected remedy for Quarry 3. The remaining Operable Units that comprise the Site are not discussed in this FFS.
1.2 JUSTIFICATION FOR REVISION OF THE ALTERNATIVE
The ROD currently specifies that the surface water contained within the three ponds in Quarry 3 be transported to an off-site disposal facility. The assumed method of transport was not specified in either the FS or the ROD and to our knowledge the availability and ability of treatment facilities to accept this water were not researched at that time. Currently, the only viable transport method for off-site treatment is by tanker truck.. Based upon the estimated volume of water currently in the quarry plus precipitation that will accumulate during the work (3.6 million gallons), approximately 1200 truck trips (50 trips per day based on a six day work week) will be required over a 1 month period to drain the ponds. Additional trucks would be required to remove precipitation throughout the remainder of the project. Given the national focus on oil conservation and the extreme difficulty in actually implementing such a remedy, including community truck traffic problems, an equally effective alternative that does not utilize trucks should be considered. The. Crater Resources Cooperating Respondent Group has accumulated significant data regarding the pond water quality since the ROD was issued and based on this data, is proposing that on-site treatment with subsequent discharge to Matsunk Creek is a more appropriate treatment/disposal method than truck transportation and off-site treatment/disposal at a POTW. This alternative treatment/disposal method is equally effective at permanently treating the water, is more easily and readily implemented, safer and more cost effective, will have less traffic impact on the surrounding community, will be in compliance with the ARARs presented in the ROD and will conserve natural resources (fuel oil). Further, this alternative has been accepted by the State of Pennsylvania and it is expected to be accepted by the Community.
1.3 SITE BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Site covers approximately 50 acres, much of which is now developed as commercial office complexes in various parcels. The remaining undeveloped portions of the Site, excepting Quarry 3, are slated for similar development in the near future. The Site is generally bounded by Crooked Lane to the west. Renaissance Boulevard to the north and east, and the Gulph Mills Golf Club to the south. The area surrounding the Site is made up of industrial commercial, residential, and undeveloped land parcels.
Quarry 3
Quarry 3 is located south of Renaissance Blvd., immediately southeast of Quarries 1 and 2 and is bounded on the south side by the Gulph Mills Golf Club. It is the only open quarry on the Site. It is approximately 8 acres in size and contains three relatively small ponds, a plateau area, several exposed bedrock faces and several soil piles. This quarry will remain as an undeveloped area for the foreseeable future.
F:\OFlCEAGC\PROreCTS\FiIes\200I-847\2008\Reports\5-22-08-Q3FeasibililySludy-revl.doc
-2-AR306538
Previous investigation has determined that there is no private well use as a potable supply within the area potentially affected by Quarry 3. Upper Marion Township requires all of its potable water users to connect to public water if there is a public main available, although non-potable wells are permitted. Surface water drainage is generally eastward towards the Schuylkill River, approximately one mile to the east. Southeast portions of the Site, including the Gulph Mills golf course, drain to Matsunk Creek which then discharges to the Schuylkill River.
1.4 SITE INVESTIGATIONS
The Crater Resources Participating Parties Group previously conducted a field investigation at the Site in accordance with the USEPA approved RJ/FS Work Plan dated 17 November 1995, the USEPA approved RI/FS Work Plan Amendment 1, dated 15 August 1997, and the USEPA approved RI/FS Work Plan Amendment 2, dated 23 December 1998. The field investigations consisted of a soil investigation, surface water and.sediment investigation, and a groundwater invesfigation. The tasks performed during these investigations cover the Site as a whole and the results are summarized in the previous feasibility study performed by ERM.
From June 16, 2003 to September 15, 2003, Advanced GeoServices Corporation (AGC) conducted a Pre-Design Investigation of Quarry 3 on behalf of the Crater Resources Cooperating Respondent Group.. The Crater Resources Cooperating Respondent Group is hereinafter referred to as the Group. The Pre-Design Investigation was performed in accordance with the USEPA approved Remedial Design Work Plan for Quarry 3 (Work Plan) and included:
• partial clearing of Quarry 3, sampling of the quarry soils and pond water, • analytical testing of the soil and pond water samples, • soil probes within the Plateau Area, • surveying of the soil sample and probe locations, • topographical survey of Quarry 3, • determination of quarry soil and pond sediment/water volumes, and • Solidification study of the soft soil in-the Plateau Area.
Sampling and analysis of the quarry soils was conducted to refine the characterization of the extent of soils to be removed in accordance with the ROD standards, to evaluate the Plateau Area directly and to gather sufficient data to prepare preliminary calculations for the volume of affected soil. Pond water sampling and analysis was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of onsite treatment and discharge of pond water in accordance with PADEP surface water discharge requirements.
Additional Sampling and analyses of the Quarry 3 sediment, plateau material and surface water was performed from February 27, 2008 through March 15, 2008 for the purposes of waste profiling and collecting additional water quality information for evaluation of treatment systems.
F:\OFlCEAGC\PROmCTS\Files\2001-847\2008\Repcrts\5-22-08-Q3FeasibilityStijdy-revl.doc
AR306539
1.4.1 Quarry 3 Soils
The soils within Quarry 3 were sampled using a Geoprobe rig and hand auger. The Geoprobe and hand auger locations and ground surface elevation of each boring were surveyed. Twenty nine borings were installed in and around Quarry 3 with five of the borings located along the quarry rim. The borings were identified as SB-1 through SB-29. Samples were collected from several depths at each boring, 112 soil samples in all.
Soil samples were analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), Target Compound List (TCL) Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs), Target Anal3l;e List (TAL) metals, and soil moisture content.
The soil boring logs were presented in the Operable Unit 3 Pre-design Investigation Summary Report (AGC, 2003).
1.4.2 Plateau Area
The Plateau Area is generally defined as the flat area west of Pond 1. During the 2003 investigation, five additional borings were advanced to refiasal with the Geoprobe in the Plateau Area. These borings locations were identified as PP-1 through PP-5 and were surveyed. The purpose of these borings was to determine the depth, stratification and consistency of any residual materials in the Plateau. Although continuous sampling of subsurface materials was performed at each location to identify consistency, stratification and depth to bedrock, no samples were retrieved for analysis.
During the 2008 investigation, twelve geoprobe borings were advanced and four samples were collected for waste profile analyses. The results indicate that the plateau material is non-hazardous, and ranges in depth from 5 to 9 feet. A 6 to 12 foot layer of soil is present below the plateau material in most locations.
1.4.3 Pond Sediment
The thicknesses of pond sediment identified by ERM in the remedial investigation and feasibility study were used by AGC to estimate in-place volume. No additional Pond Sediment sampling was performed by AGC in 2003.
During the 2008 investigation, one sediment sample was collected from each pond and the sediment thickness was measured at four locations in each pond. The sediment thicknesses were consistent with the previous measurements by ERM and the results of the analyses indicate that the sediment is non-hazardous.
1.4.4 Pond Water
Samples of the surface water in the three ponds within Quarry 3 were collected during both the 2003 and 2008 investigations. Grab and composite water samples were obtained using a Van Dom sampler at 1/3 and 2/3 of the water depth in 2003. In addition, a grab
F;\OFICEAGC\PROJECTS\File5\2001-847\2008\Reports\5-22-08-Q3 Feasibility Study-revl doc
-4-AR306540
water sample was collected immediately above the sediment from each pond in 2003 and at the center of the water column in 2008.
During both investigations, the composite water samples were analyzed for the Target Compound List (TCL) semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), Target Analyte List (TAL) metals and conventional parameters including alkalinity, biological oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), hardness, total cyanide, total dissolved solids, total organic carbon, and total suspended solids. The grab samples were analyzed for TCL Volatile Organic Compounds.
At the time of the 2003 investigation approximately 2.6 million gallons of water was present in the three ponds. Water level measurements conducted in February 2008 indicate there may be as much as 3.6 million gallons of water in the ponds, due to accumulated precipitation since 2003. The area, depth and volume calculation for the pond water is provided in Table 1-1 and a drawing showing the layout of the ponds is provided in Appendix A. The surface water concentrations of constituents from the 2003 sampling event in some cases exceed the Pennsylvania Surface Water Discharge Criteria provided by the PADEP for Matsunk Creek. Concentrations were generally higher in Pond 1 than in Ponds 2 and 3, and generally higher with depth, however all concentrations were at levels that could be treated by a mobile treatment system.
The concentrations of constituents in the 2008 samples collected at the center of the water column only exceeded the Pennsylvania Surface Water Discharge Criteria for Selenium.
F:\OFlCEAGC\PROJECTS\Files\2001-847\2008\Reports\5-22-08-Q3 Feasibility Study-revl doc
AR306541
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
2.1 OFF-SITE TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL
The description of the selected remedy in the ROD for Quarry 3 pond sediments states that "Ponds 1, 2 and 3 will be dewatered and the water will be transported to an off-site disposal facility. As discussed above, the only viable transport methods include trucking to an off-site POTW or on-site treatment and pipeline transport to Matsunk Creek. The Upper Merion Township Sewer Authority has determined that the local sewer conveyance system does not have the capacity to accommodate the flows required for this project due to over loaded pump stations. Based on measurements taken in February 2008, there currently is an estimated 3.6 million gallons of water in the ponds. Precipitation during removal activities as well as inflow from the surrounding soil and rock will increase the volume of water to be removed by an unpredictable amount. The ponds must be drained quickly, since no other remedial activity can be started until the surface water is removed. In addition, as the removal time increase, there will be additional precipitation to handle. Just to remove the 3.6 million gallons within the ponds, approximately 1200 truck trips (50 trips per day based on a six day work week) will be required over a 1 month period to drain the ponds. Additional trucks would be required to remove precipitation throughout the remainder of the project. Assuming a 2 hour round trip to load, drive to the treatment plant, discharge and return, at least 8 tanker trucks would be operating full time to accomplish this task. Trucks would enter the quarry via the access road and load adjacent to the pond. Additional trucks would be stacked on the access road or in a waiting area on or near Quarry 2.
The surface water would presumably be treated at the Upper Merion Township Matsunk Sewage Treatment Plant along with the township's normal sewage flow and discharged to the Schuylkill River in accordance with the facility's permitted discharge requirements. Periodic sampling would be performed to demonstrate compliance with the facility acceptance criteria, at a frequency to be determined by the Treatment Plant.
2.2 ON-SITE TREATMENT AND OFF-SITE DISCHARGE
This alternative includes pumping pond water from each of the three ponds directly to an on-site treatment plant, designed specifically to meet the required PADEP surface water discharge criteria, followed by transport via a temporary pipeline to Matsunk Creek. The plant would be designed to accommodate 250 gpm. This would allow the three ponds to be dewatered in 10 to 20 days, depending on the hours of operation each day, as well as on-going treatment of the periodic accumulation of surface water due to precipitation. Treatment criteria have been provided by the PADEP and are included in Appendix B. A summary of surface water quality data collected during various investigations is provided in Appendix C. The PADEP requested that the Group determine whether a discharge to the township sanitary sewer was available, before they would approve a stream discharge. The Group contacted the Upper Merion Township Sewer Department, and they have indicated that the sewer in Renaissance Blvd. does not have the capacity to
F:\OFICEAGC\PROreCTS\Files\2001-847\2008\Repons\5-22-0S-Q3FeasibilityStudy-revl.doc
AR306542
accommodate the project flows. A copy of the letter from the Township is enclosed in Appendix D.
The Group solicited technical proposals from three water treatment vendors to confirm that the surface water could be treated on-site. Those vendors included:
a. Siemens WT, Elizabeth, NJ b. Encotech, Eighty Four, PA and c. TIGG Corporation, Bridgeville, PA
All three vendors indicated that the water could be cost effectively treated to meet the discharge criteria and proposed various off-the-shelf activated carbon treatment systems for SVOCs and filtration/ion exchange systems for metals to meet the PADEP surface water discharge criteria. Pilot testing by the vendors has not been completed at this time, however; the treatment plant is expected to consist of a pre-filter for solids removal, two carbon adsorption units for removal of organic constituents and possibly an ion exchange system for metals removal, if necessary. The carbon units would run in a lead-lag configuration. A description and schematic of the treatment system has been enclosed in Appendix E; however, the project is being bid with a performance specification and each vendor will have different equipment to perform the treatment, therefore equipment sizes, model numbers, etc will not be available until the contractor is selected.
The vendors have reviewed the water data and have indicated that there is nothing unusual about the pond water that would prevent them from meeting the discharge criteria. The 2003 and 2008 pond water data has been enclosed in Appendix C. Vendors will be encouraged to collect samples and perform testing during the bidding process. The data indicates that the upper levels of the ponds already meet most of the discharge criteria.
Treated water would be pumped through a 5" HDPE pipe to Matsunk Creek and discharged directly below the Gulph Mills Golf Club pond dam. The pipe would be laid above grade along the wood line adjacent to the golf course. Gulph Mills Golf Club has already agreed to the proposed alignment. The Remedial Design Drawing showing the discharge pipe alignment is enclosed in Appendix F.
The stream would be protected at the discharge by using a rip-rap apron. The design calculations for the rip rap outlet protection, a detail of the discharge structure and a typical cross section of the stream channel have been enclosed in Appendix G. As the calculations indicate, the proposed rip rap will be more than adequate to prevent erosion of the stream. The existing creek channel is fairly large and the area draining to it is approximately 225 Acres. During a normal 2 year/24 Hr. storm event this area will generate a peak flow of 149 CFS. The charmel capacity is 1217 CFS, based on Manning's equation. The 250 GPM discharge rate equates to 0.56 CFS. Therefore it is clear that the creek can handle the additional flow, without causing erosion damage. The PADEP provided the discharge quality criteria based on their aquatic protection modeling
F:\OFlCEAGC\PROJECTS\Files\2001-847\2008\Repot1s\5-22-08-Q3 Feasibility Study-revl doc
AR306543
of the stream, based on a Q7/10 base flow condition and have determined that the discharge will be protective of aquatic life, even at the driest times of the year.
It is anticipated the treatment system will require daily attention by the operator. Pumps will be checked for proper operation, pipes will be checked for leaks, flow meter readings will be collected, and system performance will be monitored via pressure meters and periodic sampling at selected points in the treatment train. The contingency plan for any operational upsets is to shut it down and drain the system back into the ponds. Monitoring has been discussed with the PADEP and they will likely stipulate an allowable peak concentration and an allowable monthly average. They have indicated that the sampling frequency must be a minimum of once per month, but the Group will likely elect to sample weekly or twice a month, depending on the consistency of the startup sampling data. The sampling frequency, including start-up sampling, is discussed in the Sampling and Analysis Plan, to be submitted as part of the 90% Design. Details of the operation and maintenance activities will be. provided in the Contractor's Remedial Action Work Plan, once the vendor is selected and the equipment is finalized.
The Group will try to minimize the quantity of surface water by engineering controls and E&S measures such as revegetation, silt fence, hay bales and matting to minimize erosion and promote infiltration. If appropriate and if room allows, separate collection areas may be established for non-contact runoff, from which runoff could be pumped directly to the adjacent sediment basin or stored for use as dust control.
F:\OFICEAGC\PROJECTS\Files\2001-847\2008\Reporls\5-22-08-Q3 FeasibilityStudy-rcvl.doc
AR306544
3.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The ROD specified off-site disposal method for surface water and the proposed on-site treatment method are evaluated below against the nine evaluation criteria set forth in the NCP.
3.1 OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
The pond water is minimally impacted by site and naturally occurring constituents and currently presents minimal risk to human health and the environment. Off-site transport and disposal will protect human health and the environment by eliminating the existing water in the quarry and preventing the accumulation of surface water in the future, while providing for treatment of the water at an off site facility whose discharge limits are regulated by the State and presumably provide the necessary protection. It is unlikely the Site surface water would adversely impact the facility's ability to meet its discharge limits. This alternative increases the risk to human health by increasing the potential for injuries related to vehicular accidents due to the high number of vehicle miles required to dispose of the water by truck.
The on-site treatment alternative will also protect human health and the environment by eliminating the existing water in the quarry and preventing the accumulation of surface water in the future, while providing for treatment of the water at an on-site facility, whose discharge limits have been established by the State after consideration of the specific environment of Matsunk Creek. This alternative does not increase the risk to human health related to traffic injuries.
The on-site treatment alternative is considered better in protecting human health and the environment because it eliminates the Site risks without increasing off-site accident risks.
3.2 COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS
Although no specific ARARs are identified in the ROD for surface water, the Pennsylvania Water Quality Standards (25 PA Code 93.4a, 93.5-93.7, and 93.8a), the Clean Water Act (40 CFR Part 125.3 and Parts 122.44-45) and the Pennsylvania National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (25 PA Code 95.1-95.3) could be inferred as ARARs. All of these ARARs address the quality of the treated water.
Since off-site transport and disposal was selected in the ROD, it is presumed that this alternative meets all of the ARAR's presented in the ROD.
Since the PADEP has provided discharge criteria for the discharge, it is presumed that on-site treatment with off-site discharge will comply with the water quality ARAR's as long as the compliance sampling from the on-site treatment plant demonstrates compliance with the established discharge criteria. Table 3.1 provides additional supporting information on how this alternative would meet the ARAR's.
F:\OFICEAGC\PROreCTS\Files\2001-847\2008\Reports\5-22-08-Q3FeasibilityStudy-revl.doc
AR306545
Both alternatives are considered equal in compliance with ARARs.
Long Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Off-site transport and disposal will achieve long term effectiveness and permanence, because once the surface water is removed and treated, it will not contact Site contaminants again and once the sediments are removed and the ponds are backfilled, fiiture surface water within the ponds will be eliminated and will no longer contact Site contaminants. Therefore, there will be no residual risks associated with this alternative or long term controls required..
On-site treatment and off-site discharge will also achieve long term effectiveness and permanence, because once the surface water is removed and treated, it will not contact Site contaminants again and once the sediments are removed and the ponds are backfilled, future surface water within the ponds will not contact Site contaminants. Therefore, there will be no residual risks associated with this alternative or long term controls required.
Both alternatives are considered equal in long term effectiveness and permanence.
3.3 REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY AND VOLUME THROUGH TREATMENT
The pond water is minimally impacted by site and naturally occurring constituents and already has very low toxicity.
Off-site transport and disposal will eliminate any toxicity associated with the pond water since the pond water will be removed from the Site and treated to remove Site constituents. When the Site organic constituents are removed using the biological treatment processes of a POTW or commercial treatment plant they will become immobile and the volume will be significantly reduced, since they will be either destroyed in the treatment process or bound up in the treatment plant sludge. This treatment process is completely irreversible. Any residual constituents after treatment is expected meet the facility's discharge criteria.
On-site treatment and off-site discharge will also eliminate any toxicity associated with the pond water since the pond water will be removed from the Site and treated to remove Site constituents. When the Site organic constituents are removed using the carbon adsorption system, they will become immobile and the volume will be significantly reduced, since they will ultimately be destroyed during the carbon regeneration process. This treatment process is completely irreversible. Any residual constituents after treatment are expected to meet the PADEP-specified discharge criteria.
Both alternatives are considered equal in reduction of toxicity, mobility and volume.
F:\OFlCEAGC\PROreCTS\Files\200l-847\2008\Reports\5-22-08-Q3FeasibilityStudy-revl.doc
-10-AR306546
3.4 SHORT TERM EFFECTIVENESS
Off-site transport and disposal will be a marginally effective short term remedy. The implementation time could be significantly increased due to limited availability of trucks and unmanageable off-loading conditions at the treatment plant. Significant rainfall events during the work could cause significant delays due to the additional water to be removed from the work area. Existing traffic congestion will be worsened in the short term by this alternative.
The public will be protected from exposure to site constituents by containing the water in sealed tank trucks and restricting access to the work area by the public. Site workers will be protected from site constituents by utilizing proper persormel protective equipment as required by the site Health and Safety Plan. The only risk of exposure would be in the case of a traffic accident involving a tank truck. Adverse environmental impacts caused by this alternative are the significant use of fuel oil to transport the surface water to the treatment plant and the increased truck traffic on area roads.
On-site treatment and off-site discharge will be a very effective short, term remedy, as it does not depend on the availability of trucks or other off-site conditions and can therefore be implemented without significant delays due to external factors. The only limiting factor of this alternative is the discharge rate of 250 gpm, which is sufficient to remove all the surface water within from each of the three ponds within a month and is sufficient to handle significant amounts of precipitation during the work. The public will be protected from exposure to site constituents by containing the water in sealed treatment tanks and restricting access to the work area by the public. Site workers will be protected from site constituents by utilizing proper personnel protective equipment as required by the site Health and Safety Plan.
There are no adverse enyironmental impacts caused by this alternative. Existing traffic congestion will not be worsened in the short term by this alternative and the project can be completed on a more predictable schedule.
' On-site treatment and off-site discharge is considered to be more effective in the short term than off-site transportation and disposal because it can be completed in a shorter and more predictable time than the off-site transport and disposal and because there are less limiting factors for the treatment process. There is also no increase in traffic congestion or risk of exposure by truck accident for the on-site treatment alternative and the use of fuel oil is minimal compared to the off-site alternative.
3.5 IMPLEMENTABILITY
Off-site transport and disposal can be accomplished with well proven and reliable technology and can be monitored with standard analytical testing; however, it will be very difficult to implement for the following reasons:
F.\OFICEAGC\PROXECTS\Fi)es\2001-847\2008\Repons\5-22-08-Q3 Feasibility Study-revl.doc
-11-AR306547
• It requires almost continuous operation of 8 to 10 tanker trucks throughout the work week. It may be very difficult to locate and contract that many trucks to be committed for two to three months.
• A loading station will need to be constructed between Quarry 3 and Renaissance Blvd., where trucks will also need to turn around. The available space in this area is very limited and the loading station may interfere with waste disposal traffic.
• Special facilities may need to be constructed at the treatment plant to handle the steady stream of trucks into and out of the facility. Special arrangements may need to be made with the treatment facility to allow trucks to off-load outside normal work hours.
• Current traffic conditions along Swedeland Road during the morning and afternoon rush hours are extremely congested and trucks may be significantly delayed during those periods, while adding to the traffic congestion problem.
• Trucking operations will also be delayed during inclement weather. • As the volume of surface water to be removed increases due to precipitation and
inflow, it will become more difficult to remove in a reasonable time. • This alternative needs to be coordinated with the Upper Merion Sewer
Department, the Trucking Subcontractor, USEPA and PADEP.
On-site treatment and off-site discharge can be accomplished with well proven and reliable technology, can be monitored with standard analytical testing and is readily implementable.
• The systems are off-the shelf items that can be delivered to the site, set up and tested in a few weeks.
• The systems have been proven to be effective at numerous sites. • The discharge pipe can be installed on the surface along the woods line of the
adjacent golf course. The Golf Club has already approved the alignment. • Once the system is operational it can operate around the clock, if necessary. • Discharge will not be delayed by traffic, weather or truck availability problems. • The only trucks required will be those needed to occasionally change out the
carbon. • As the volume of surface water to be removed increases due to precipitation and
inflow, this alternative will be able to handle it due to the 250 gpm discharge rate and the ability to treat for 24 hours per day, if needed.
• The system installation and operation only needs to be coordinated with the USEPA and PADEP, two agencies that are already very familiar with the Site.
On-site treatment and off-site discharge is considered superior fi-om an implementability perspective to off-site transportation and disposal because the off-site alternative is significantly more impacted by off-site factors than the on-site alternative. The off-site alternative could be impacted by off-site influences to the extent that it becomes unworkable.
F:\OFICEAGC\PROreCTS\File5\200I-847\2008\Reports\S-22-08-Q3 Feasibility Study-revl doc
-12-AR306548
3.6 COST
The cost of the off-site transport and disposal alternative is estimated to be $858,000. These costs are highly dependent on the location of the disposal facility and the daily discharge it can accept. This cost estimate assumes that the water will be transported to the nearby Matsunk POTW for treatment. If pretreatment is required prior to disposal, then the estimated cost will increase by approximately $163,000. Detailed cost estimates are provided in Table 3-2.
The cost of the on-site treatment and off-site discharge alternative is estimated to be $293,000. This estimate assumes a twelve month system rental period (for treatment of runoff water during plateau and soil removal) and a carbon usage rate of 5 Ib/mgal. Truck transportation is eliminated. Detailed cost esfimates are provided in Table 3-2.
3.7 STATE ACCEPTANCE
Since off-site transport and disposal was included in the ROD it is assumed that the State of Pennsylvania has accepted this alternative.
The PADEP has been working with the Group to establish discharge criteria for Matsunk Creek; therefore the Group believes the State of Pennsylvania will accept this alternative.
3.8 COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
Since off-site transport and disposal was included in the ROD it is assumed that the community has accepted this alternative, although a review of the public comments to the proposed plan reveals some public concerns over the level of traffic and general nuisance that would be caused by this alternative.
It is believed, that on-site treatment and off-site discharge will be accepted by the community because it eliminates the potential for significant traffic problems in the adjacent office park and the community.
F.\OFlCEAGC\PROJECTS\Files\2001-847\2008\Reports\5-22-08-Q3 Feasibility Study-revl.
-13-AR306549
4.0 COMPARISON OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE TO ROD REMEDY
The following table summarizes the two alternatives for comparative purposes.
As indicated, the proposed alternative is consistent with the remedy outlined in the ROD and is protective of human health and the environment. This comparison is based on the nine evaluation criteria set forth in the NCP.
Criterion ROD Approach FFS Approach ''. " ' "x " r Effectiveness" •- - , •* ? ^ •- '
Overall Protectiveness
ARAR Compliance
Long-Term Effectiveness Short-Term Effectiveness
•
Both remedies are protective of human health and the environment. Potential exposure yia all potential pathways is mitigated except for potential vehicular accidents. No specific ARARs established in the FS or ROD, both remedies comply with inferred ARARs including State standards.
Both Remedies are effective over the long term given that the surface water will be removed fi:om the Site. Increased disruption of the community, potential for. exposure due to traffic accident.
Effective in protecting public and workers. Better implementation time. Eliminates truck traffic
',. , Implementability , .„ \ .,, ' ' . Constructability
Reliability
Availability
Both alternatives rely on proven water treatment technology.
Can be delayed by weather, traffic, accidents, equipment scheduling problems The requisite number of trucks may not be available. Difficult to handle increased volume.
Reliable in all weather.
Equipment is readily available, can easily handle an increase in volume.
il?^"iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM^^ Capital Cost O&M Cost Present Worth
•f.-v.::v..• -: ,::y • • • • : % . : : : ^ : ^ $ o . o ? •:::...v;;::--.;:;:;r-.:\-vN:''-::::;.$.858
-l-:r'>-<-:-^:y\m--SS^^
$0.0 $293,000
.•V,....;;:;.vv:.:;v,.-;:,::..r$293i000:
'4 "vf '-Acceptance' { ! « ,
State Acceptance Both altematives are acceptable to the State.
Community Acceptance
Community complaints are expected once trucks start traveling local roads.
Community is expected to accept, based on minimal impact to traffic.
F:\OFlCEAGC\PROreCTS\Files\2001-847\2008\Reports\5-22-08-Q3 Feasibility Sludy-revl.doc
-14-AR306550
As shown in the preceding table, and as previously discussed, the two altematives (i.e., the ROD altemative and the FFS altemative) are essentially indistinguishable in terms of ARAR compliance, long-terrn effectiveness, constructability and State acceptance. The FFS altemative is more protective and implementable, has better short term effectiveness and is expected to be more acceptable to the community. Major advantages of the on-site treatment altemative include ability to adapt to unforeseen difficulties or changed conditions and significantly reduced cost and time to complete.
Based on this comparison, it is clear that on-site treatment with subsequent discharge to Matsunk Creek is a superior altemative to off-site transportation and disposal for surface water management at this Site.
F\OFICEAGC\PROreCTS\Files\2001-847\2008\Reports\5-22-08-Q3 FeasibililyStudy-revl.doc
-15-AR306551
5.0 REGULATORY PROCESS
USEPA's guidance on preparing remedy selection documents (USEPA, 1999) states:
"While the ESD is being prepared and made available to the public, the lead agency may proceed with the pre-design, design, construction, or operation activities associated with the remedy. The lead agency should consult with the support agency, as appropriate, before issuing an ESD (NCP §300.435 (c) (2). Although not specifically required by CERCLA §121 (f) and NCP §300.435 (c) (2) (i), it is also recommended that the lead agency provide the support agency the opportunity to comment, and summarize the support agency's comments in the ESD. The lead agency also must publish a notice of availability and a brief description of the ESD in a major local newspaper of general circulation (as required by NCP §300.435 (c) (2) (i) (B)). The ESD must be made available to the public by placing it in the Administrative Record file and information repository (NCP §300.435 (c) (2) (i) (A) and 300.825 (a) (2)). A formal public comment period is not required when issuing an ESD."
F:\OFICEAGC\PRO)ECTS\Files\2001-847\2008\Reports\5-22-08-Q3 Feasibility Sludy-revl.doc
-16-AR306552
6.0 REFERENCES
ERM, Inc. (1999) Remedial Investigafion Report. Volume I. Crater Resources Site. June, 1999.
ERM, Inc. (2000) Feasibility Study for the Crater Resources Site. February 29, 2000.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA; 2000) Superfimd Program Record of Decision for the Crater Resources Superfund Site. September 2000.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA; 1999) A Guide to Preparing Superfimd Proposed Plans, Records of Decisions, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents, July 1999. EPA 540-R-98-031
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 1990). National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 46. March 8, 1990
F:\OFICEAGC\PROJECTS\Files\2001-847\2008\Repons\5-22-08-Q3FeasibilityStudy-revl.doc
-17-AR306553
TABLES
AR306554
Crater Resources Superfund Site Focused Feasibility Study
Surface Water Treatment and Disposal
Table 1-1 POND SURFACE WATER VOLUME
POND SURFACE WATER
Pond Avg. Water Depth (ft.)
2003
Avg. Water Depth (ft.)
2008
Pond Area (SF)
Volume (gals) 2003' Volume (gals) 2008
1 Pond 1 Pond 2 Ponds
9.5 4.3 10
11.2 7.1
15.1
16,330 4,660
17,590
1,160,491 149,895
1,315,824
• - 1.363.990 247,483
1,981.821
TOTAL 2,626,210 3,593,295
AR306555
TABLE ,3.1 CRATER RESOURCES SITE
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY COMPLIANCE WITH
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARS)
ARAR L e g a l C i t a t i o n Summary o f R e q u i r e m e n t P l a n n e d C o m p l i a u i c e
J. CHEMICAL SPECIFIC
A. Wnter
I. Pennsylvania Water Quality Standards
25 PA Code Chapters 93.4a. 93.5-93.7, and 93.8a
These are guidelines estabhshed pursuant to Section 304 of the Clean Water Act that set (he concentrations of pollutants that are allowable at levels which preserve hnnian health based on water and fish ingestion and to preserve aquatic life. Ambient water quality criteria may be relevant and appropriate to CERCLA cleanups based on the uses of a water body.
PADEP has established the effluent criteria based on prelection of aquatic life and human health standards for the receiving stream. The treatment system wil l not discharge to the stream until it has been demonstrated that it meets these criteria. Periodic monitoring will be performed to deinonstrale continued compliance.
Floating material, scum and sediment wil l be removed in (he pre-filter, oil and grease are not present in the ponds, there are no color forming inaterials in the ponds, taste and odor causing substances will be removed by the carbon filter.
n . ACTION SPECIFIC
A. Water
I. Clean Water Act (CWA); 40 CFR Part 125.3 40 CFR Part 122.44-45
Establishes substantive requirements and limits for discharges to waters of Pennsylvania and (he United Stales.
This ARAR applies to the Permitting Agency, not the Permittee. The Group wi l l comply with technology based treatment requirements eslablLshed by the PADEP for benzene and BTEX using a carbon adsorption system.
2. Pennsylvania National Pollutant Discharge Eliinination System Requirements;
25 PA Code Chapters 95.1 95.3
Establishes substantive requirements and limits for discharges to waters of Pennsylvania and the United States
No acid wastes are present in the ponds, surface water pH is between 7 and 8. There is no oil sheen on the ponds arid oil is not present at 15 mg/I. Total iron concentrations in the surface water are less than 7 mg/I before treatinent.
3. Erosion and Sediment Control 25 PA Code 102.4(b)(1), 102.11, 102.22
Identifies erosion and sediment control requirements and criteria for activities involving land clearing, grading and other earth disturbances and establishes erosion and sediment control criteria.
A rip rap outlet protection pad has been provided at the outfall pipe.
B. Residual Waste
I. Residual Waste Regulations 25 PA Code 299.101-.133
25 PA Code 299.211-215
Establishes the criteria for storing and transporting residual waste.
Residual waste is not expected to be generated. Spent carbon and ion exchange resin will be returned to the supplier for regeneration. If the circumstances require the disposal of these materials, they wil l be transported by a licensed waste hauler to a licensed waste disposal facility, permitted to accept the material.
AR306556
Crater Resources Super fund Site
Focused Feasibility Study
Surface Water Treatment and Disposal
Table 3-2 Cost Compar ison of Al ternat ives
DEWATERING, TRUCKING & OFFSITE DISPOSAL OF SURFACE WATER
Item Quantity Unit Facility DEWATERING, TRUCKING & OFFSITE DISPOSAL OF SURFACE WATER
Dewatering Ponds 1, 2 & 3 5,600,000 gal Hauling Suiface Water, <10 miles, F 5,600,000 gal Disposal of Suiface Water 5,600,000 gal 0.06 monitoring 12 mo $ 1,500
PRETREATMENT
On-Site Treatment, mob, demob 1 Treatment of Surface Water 12
Is mo
Assumptions; 3,600,000 gallons currently in ponds, 1,000,000 gallons rainfall runoff (46" annual rainfall, 10%
• 1.000,000 qal inflow from surroundinq rock, 5,600,000
$ 67,000 $ 8,000
runoff, 8 acres
Labor
$0.01 $0.04
quarry =
uipment
$0.01 $0.03
Facility Labor Equipment
$56,000 $56,000 $224,000 $168,000
$336,000 $18,000
Total
$67,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $96,000.00
TOTAL
46/12*10%*8 acres* 43560*7.48 gal/cf)
Total Dirprt Cost
$112,000 $392,000 $336,000 $18,000
$858,000
$67,000 $96,000
$163,000
DEWATERING, ON-SITE TREATMENT & OFFSITE DSlCHARGE OF SURFACE WATER
Item Quantity Unit Facility Labor Equipment Facility Labor Equipment Total Direct Cost
Dewatering Ponds 1, 2 & 3 5,600,000 gal On-Site Treatment, mob, demob 1 Is Treatment of Surface Water 12 mo monitoring ' 12 mo
$0.01 $0.01
?»
67,000 8,000 1,500
$67,000 $96,000 $18,000
$56,000 $0
$56,000 $0
$112,000 $67,000 $96,000 $18,000
Assumptions: Total 3,600,000 gallons currently in ponds, 1,000,000 gallons rainfall runoff (46" annual rainfall, 10% runoff, 8 acres quarry = 46/12*10%*8 acres* 43560*7.48 gal/cf) 1.000.000 qal inflow from surroundinq rock, ' ^
5,600,000
$293,000
C:\Docume(its and Settings\tlegel\My Documents\Crater\FFS tables 5-13-08 .xls5/27/2008 AR306557
APPENDICES
F.\OFICEAGC\PROJECTS\FilesUOOI-8.17^200S\Reports\5-22-OS-FLy SHEETS doc
AR306558
APPENDIX A
SEDIMENT REMOVAL PLAN PHASE I
F:\0FlCEACC\PR0JECTS\Filcs\2U(l 1 -S47\2l)0S\Rcpons«-22-FEAS.STUDY .APPENDIX A.doc
AR306559
SDMS US EPA Region III Imagery Insert Form
Sit« Nani«: C g t ^ ^ T ^ ^ ^ e j ( ^ ~ 3 M J - ^ ^ 0 < c ^ Oocuimnt 10: L ? I <!9a g 1 ^
D
D
B
El
Som« ImagM in this docunMnI may b« illcgibto or unavallabto In SOMS. Ptoas« %— r«ason<s) indlcatod below:
ILLEGIBLE diM to bad sourc« docunants. Image9(s) in SOMS equivalent to hard copy.
Specify Type of Oocuniant(t) / Conwnents:
Indudee COLOR or RESOLUTION variatkxie. Unless ottierwlM noted, these pages arm available in monoctwome. The source document page(s) is mors iegibie than the images. The original document is availat)le for viewing at the Supedijnd Records Center.
Specify Type of Docunant(s) / Comments:
RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI-R): Restricted or copyrlghtftd documents thai cannot t)e imaged.
Specify Type of Oocumant(s) / Commants:
UNSCANNABLE MATERIAL Oversized or FormaL Due to certain scanning equipment capability limitations, the
document page(s) is not available in SOMS. The original document is available for vi«- irr> at the EPA Region 3 Superflind Records Center.
Specify Type of Oocum«nt(s) / Comments:
Document is available at the EPA Region 3 Superfund Records Center.
Specif-, Type of Oocument(s) / Comments:
AR306560
APPENDIX B
PADEP WQBEL DISCHARGE TO MATSUNK CREEK
F.\OFlCEACC\PROmCTS\Fi]cs'i(l01-847\30())i'J<cpons\V22-FEAS STUDY APPENDIX A doc
AR306561
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
2 East Main Street Norristown, PA 19401
Febmary 28, 2008
Southeast Regional Office Phone: Fax:
484-250-5970 484-250-5971
Mr. Thomas M. Legel, P.E. Supervising Contractor Advanced GeoServices 1055 Andrew Drive, Suite A West Chester, PA 19380-4293
Re: Temporary Discharge Limits Crater Resources Superftind Site File Type: NPDES Upper Merion Township Montgomery County
Dear Mr. Legel:
This is in response to your Febmary 21, 2008, letter requesting effluent limits for a temporary discharge resulting from the draining of three ponds to Matsunk Creek in Upper Merion Township, Montgomery County. As requested, water quality-based effluent limits are provided for a design flow of 250 gallons per minute discharged directly to Matsunk Creek. Limits are in parts per billion (ppb), except where noted:
Parameter 2,4-Dimethylphenol Acenaphthene Acetone Aluminum Anthracene Arsenic Barium Benzene Benzo (a) anthracene Benzo (a) pyrene Benzo (k) fluoranthene Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Chrysene Cobalt Copper Cyanide, free Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene Ethylbenzene
WQBEL for 250 gpm
184 24
4,945 679
13,565 71
3,391 184
0.14 NA NA
1,286 NA 27 24 7.3 NA 820
An Equal Opportunity Employer www.dep.state.pa.us Printed on Recycled Paper
AR306562
Mr. Thomas M. Legel, P.E. 2 - February 28, 2008
Parameter Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene Lead Manganese Mercury Naphthalene Nickel P-Cresol (4 methylphenol) Phenanthrene Pyrene Selenium Thallium Toluene Total Iron Vanadium Xylene Zinc pH (standard units) Total Suspended Solids (mg/1)*
WQBEL for 250 gpm
57 1,837
NA . 11
1,413 0.07
61 132 226 1.4
1,356 7
2.4 466
2,119 141 297 195 6-9 30
*Total Suspended Solids limit of 30 mg/l applies discharge flows.
at all
The limits are based on protection of aquatic life and threshold human health standards for the receiving stream. Because of the short-term duration of the discharge, limits based on long-term carcinogenicity are not included. In addition to water quality based effluent limits, technology based limits for benzene (1 ppb) and total BETX (100 ppb) apply.
Please be advised that these limits are preliminary in nature and that an approval for a temporary discharge must be obtained prior to initiating the discharge which, according to your letter, is anticipated during fall 2008 or spring 2009. Upon finalization of your design process, a request for temporary discharge approval must include the proposed discharge rate, time frame, and duration of discharge, and proposed treatment process to ensure compliance with both the water quality and technology-based limits. According to your July 19, 2007, correspondence with Upper Merion Township, the township indicated that, upon completion of a pump station upgrade, discharge to public sewers will be a viable option. This discharge option must be pursued before the Department will approve a stream discharge. Further confirmation, in writing, from the township denying permission to discharge to the sanitary sewers must be provided with any request for temporary discharge approval. A temporary discharge approval will include at a minimum requirements for influent and effluent monitoring and reporting, and erosion and sedimentation controls.
AR306563
Mr. Thomas M. Legel, P.E. - 3 - February 28, 2008
If you have any questions, please call Ms. Laurel Ateyeh of the Permits Section at 484-250-5198.
Sincerely,
Srhao^L-^^ Sohan L. Garg, P.E. Environmental Engineer Manager NPDES Pennits Section Water Management
cc: Upper Merion Township Environmental Cleanup Program File Re(joh07wqm)212-8
AR306564
APPENDIX C
SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA
F:\OFICEAGC\PROJECTSVFilcs\2001-847\2008\Repons\5-22-FEAS.STUDY APPENDIX A doc AR306565
TABLE 1 Analytical Summaiy of Pond Samples
Crater Resources Superfund Site 2003 RI
Page 1 of4
PADEP
TEMPORARY
DISCHARGE
LBVOTS
Sample Location
Lab ID
Sample Date
Matrix
Parameter Units
POND-l-A-3
449210
. 8/6/2003
Surface Water
Result 1 Q 1 R L
POND-l-A-6
449211
8/6/2003
Surface Water
Result 1 Q 1 R L
POND-l-A-3/6
449212
8/6/2003
Surface Water
Result 1 Q 1 R L
POND-1-A-Bottom
449213
8/6/2003
Surface Water
Result J Q 1 R L
POND-l-B-3
449214
8/6/2003
Surface Water
Result 1 Q 1 R L
Volatiles
4,945
1
-820
466
297
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon Disulfide
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene (Total) .
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L .
65 UJ
U
u u u u
5
1
5
4
5
5
82 UJ
U
U
U
U
U
5
1
5
4
5
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
27
44
3.5
15
4.7
UJ
U
J
J
5
1
5
4
5
5
3200 UJ
U
U
U
U
U
120
25
120
100
120
120
Semivolatiles
184
---
13,565
0.14,
NA
-..
NA
1,286
-NA
NA
• -
57
1.837
NA
61
1.4
1,356
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
4-Methylphenol
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthrBcene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranLhene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthaIate
Carbazole
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)antliracene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
uga.
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ugtt.
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
uga.
ug/L
uga.
ugrt.
ug/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
•NA
NA
•NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.7
0 6
: (^7 1
0.8
1
1.2
0.2
0.8
1
0.9
0.2
1
U
U
U
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
U
J
J
u u J
u : u J
J
10
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
10
1
10
10
10
1
10
10
10
1
10
10
10
89
1.1
150
4
2.5
4
5.9
5.1
4.9
6
2.3
2.5 .
4.3
' 1:1
0.6
6.4
1
4.4
s ; i l» ; wmMi
6.2
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
m J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
•NA
NA
NA
Total Metals
679
71
3,391
--27
24
11
--1,413
0.07
132
-7
2.4
141
195
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
ug/1
ug/1
ugA
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1 •
ug/1
ugA
UgA
ug/1
ug/1
ugA
ugA
ug/1 .
ug/1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
445
12
12
63,000
2.2
1040 .
9,650
328
mmm 2,720
wmm 1,310
17
J
u J
u
m u J
J
u u u
77.4
1.2
1.3
74.5
3.5
2.1
39.7
2.2
70
2.9
0.1
3.9
106
2.2
361
1.8
1.5
5.8
mmm 30.5
21.3
116,000
7.6
7,380
6.5
16,700
ii;iiS?g;i iissgississ;;
5.9
2,990
:::i:::i:« 1,870
Siliisi; 2.1
29.7
J
U
J
J
J
J
J.
J
u
77.4
1.2
1.3
74.5
3.5
2.1
39.7
2.2
70
2.9
0.1
3.9
106
2.2
361
1.8
1.5
5.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 Conventionals
... 1 --
-----30
Alkalimty - Bicarbonate
BOD
COD
Hardness (Titrimetric)
Total Cyanide
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Total Suspended Solids
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
173
79.9
212
0.52
253
19.1
22
u 5
5
10
0.5
0.01
10 •
1
10
388
53.1
133
400
0.95
• 428
29.3
msm
5
5
10
0.5
0.01
10
1
10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
F:\OFICEAGC\PROJECTS\Work\Crater Resources\Pond discharge limit\TablelPond
AR306566
TABLE 1 Analytical Summary of Pond Samples
Crater Resources Superfund Site 2003 RI
Page 2 of4
PADEP
TEMPORARY
DISCHARGE
L I M i r s
Sample Location
Lab ID
Sample Date
Matrix
Parameter Units
POND-l-B-6
449215
8/6/2003
Surface Water
Result 1 Q 1 R L
POND-l-B-3/6
449216
8/6/2003
Surface Water
Result 1 Q 1 R L
POND-2-A-1.5
448816
8/5/2003
Surface Water
Result 1 Q 1 R L
POND-2-A-3
448817
8/5/2003
Surface Water
Result 1 Q 1 R L
POND-2-A-1.5/3
448818
8/5/2003
Surface Water
Result 1 Q R L
Volatiles
4,945
1
-820
466
297
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon Disulfide
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene (Total)
ug/L
ug/L
uga.
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
45
1.3
1
UJ
U
U
J
U
5
1
5
4
5
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
UJ
u u u u u
5
1
5
4
5
5
6.7
UJ
U
U
u
U
5
1
5
4
5
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Semivolatiles
184
~ --
13,565
0.14
NA
--
NA
1,286
-NA
NA
-57
1,837
NA
61
1.4
1,356
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2-MethylnaphthaIene
4-Methylphenol
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthcne
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Carbazole
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
UgO.
ug/L
ug/L
ugT.
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
uga.
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.9
0.8
L^4^« 1 5
1.2
1.5
1.4
0.3
1.2
1.4
1.2
0.3
1.4
U
U
U
J
J
J
J
U
J
J
U
u J
u
u J
J
10
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
10
1
10
10
10
1
10
10
10
1
10
10
10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5
0.4
0.9
U
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
u u UJ
u u UJ
J
u UJ
u UJ
UJ
u J
UJ
UJ
10
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
10
1
10
10
10
1
10
10
10
1
10
10
10
Total Metals
679
71
.3,391
-27
24
- •
11
-1.413
0.07
132
-7
-2.4
141
195
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zmc
u g l
ugfl
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ugA
ugA
ug/1
ug/1
UgA
ug/1
ug/1 .
ug/1
ugA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
mmm 13.5
11.7
63,200
4.2
1,550
2.8
9,400
354
wmm 4.7
2,830
imMm 1,210
49
J
u J
J
wm J
. J
J
u u u
774
1.2
1.3
74.5
3.5
2.1
39.7
2.2
70
2.9
0.1
3.9
106
2.2
361
1.8
1.5
5.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
86.8
25.1
32
116,000
1,230
8,480
804
2,160
W iMm 1,390
10.2
J
J
u u
u
u u J
J
u u u
774
1.2
1.3
74.5
3.5
2.1
39.7
2.2
70
2.9
0.1
3.9
106
2.2
361
1.8
1.5
5.8
Conventionals
----~ --30
Alkalinity - Bicarbonate
BOD
COD
Hardness (Titrimetric)
Total Cyanide
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Total Suspended Solids
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
178
6.9
73.6
204.
0.64
290
20.2
28
5
5
10
0.5
0.01
10
1
10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
294
9.8
128
328
2
477
51.2
16
5
5
10
0.5
0.01
10
1
10
F:\OFICEAGC\PROJECTS\Work\Crater Resources\Pond discharge limit\TablelPond
AR306567
TABLE! Analytical Summary of Pond Samples
Crater Resources Superfimd Site 2003 RI
Page 3 of4
PADEP TEMPORARY DISCHARGE
LIMITS
Sample Location Lab ID Sample Date Matrix Parameter Units
POND-2-A-Bottom 448819 8/5/2003
Surface Water Result 1 Q RL
POND-2-B-1.5 448820 8/5/2003
Surface Water Result 1 Q 1 RL
POND-2-B-3 448821
8/5/2003 Surface Water
Result 1 Q 1 RL
POND-2-B-1.5/3 448822 8/5/2003
Surface Water Result 1 Q RL
POND-3-A-3 447750
. 7/30/2003 SW
RESULT 1 Q 1 RL Volatiles
4,945 1
-820 466 297
Acetone Benzene Carbon Disulfide Ethylbenzene Toluene Xylene (Total)
ug/L
ugrt. ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L
0.6 1.9
5.7
UJ J J U
U
5 1 5 4 5 5
45 UJ U U U U U
5
1 5 4 5 5
18
1.8
5.6
UJ U J
.U
u
5 1 5 4 5 5
NA NA NA NA NA NA
UJ U UJ
u u u
5 1 5 4 5 5
Semivolatiles 184
---
13,565 0.14 NA
--
NA 1.286
-NA NA
-57
1,837 NA 61 1.4
1,356
2,4-Dimethylphenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 4-Methylphenol Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Bcnzo(b){luoranthene Benzo(g,h,i)peryIene Ben2o(k)fluoranthene bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthaIate Carbazole Chrysene Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Dibenzofuran Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(l .2,3-cd)pyrene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene
ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ugflL ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ugA.
520
2.9
U UJ J
UJ UJ
u u UJ
u u UJ
u u UJ
u UJ UJ
u J
UJ UJ
50 50 50 50 50 5 5 5 50 5 50 50 50 5 50 50 50 5 50 50 50
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.8
U UJ J
UJ J
u u UJ
u u UJ J
u UJ
u UJ UJ U J
UJ UJ
10 10 10 10 10 1 1 1 10 1 10 10 10 1 10 10 10 1 10 10 10
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Total Metals 679 71
3,391
~ 27 24
-11
- •
1,413 0.07 132
-7
2.4 141 195
Aluminum Arsenic Barium Calcium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc
ugA UgA ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ugn ug/1 ug/1 UgA ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1
91.9 42.3 479
154,000
1,910
11,800 1200
WMmi
3,850
m^M • 1,680
11.2
J
J
u u
u
u J
J
u u u
774 1.2 1.3
74.5 3.5 2.1 39.7 2.2 70 2.9
.0.1 3.9 106 2.2 361 1.8 1.5 5.8
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
86.9 26.2^ 33.4
119.000
1,810
8,780 959
2350
Miill ; 1,330
13.4
J
J
u u
u
u u J
J
u u u
77.4 1.2 1.3
74.5 3.5 2.1 39.7 2.2 70 2.9 0.1 3.9 106 2.2 361 1.8 1.5 5.8
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Conventionals
-------30
Alkalinity - Bicarbonate
BOD COD Hardness (Titrimetric)
Total Cyanide Total Dissolved Solids Total Organic Carbon Total Suspended Solids
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
389 37.6 183 520 2.5 688 60.3 14
5 5 10 0.5
0.01 10 1 10
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
294 11.1 128 360
.2.1 498 51.8 18
5 5 10 0.5 0.01 10 1 10
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
F-.\OFlCEAGC\PROJECTS\Work\Crater Resources\Pond discharge limitXTablelPond
AR306568
TABLE 1 Analytical Summaiy of Pond Samples
Crater Resources Superfund Site 2003 RI
Page 4 of4
P A D E P
T E M P O R A R Y
DISCHARGE
LIMTTS
Sample Location
Lab ID
Sample Date
Matrix
Parameter Units
POND-3-A-6
447751
7/30/2003
SW
RESULT] Q | R L
POND-3-A-3/6
447752
7/30/2003
SW
RESULTl Q 1 R L
POND-3-A-Bottom
447753
7/30/2003
SW
RESULT] Q 1 R L
POND-3-B-3.3
447755
7/30/2003
SW
RESULT] Q ] R L
POND-3-B-6.6
447756
7/30/2003
SW
RESULT] Q JRL
POND-3-B-3.3/6.6
447757
7/30/2003
SW
RESULT] Q ] RL
Volatiles
4,945
1
-820
466
297
Acetone
Benzene
Carbon Disulfide
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylene (Total)
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L .
u&T.
ug/L
ugtt.
UJ
U
UJ
u u u
5
1
5
4
5
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.8
3.9
UJ
u UJ
J
J
u
5
1
5
4
5
5
m^ . i u U
U
U
U
500
100
500
400
500
500
14 UJ
U
UJ
U
U
U
5
1
5
4
5
5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Semivolatiles
184
---:-
13,565
0.14
NA
--
NA •
1,286
-NA
NA
-57
.1,837
NA
61
1.4
1,356
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2-Methybiaphthalene
4-Methylphenol
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranlJiene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene .
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Carbazole
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anlhracene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
u U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
10
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
10
1
10
10
10
1
10
10
10
1
10
10
10
11
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
2.8
0.2
u u
u u u u J
u u UJ
J
J
u u J
u u J
UJ
J
10
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
10
1
10
10
10
1
10
10
10
1
10
10
10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
10
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
10
1
10
10
10 •
1
10
10
10
1
10
10
10
Total Metals
679
71
3,391
27
24
11
~ 1,413
0.07
132
-7
-2.4
141
195
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
ug/1
ugA
ugfl
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
UgA
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
u ^
ugfl
ug/1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.5
23.3
60,500
5.3
400
5,530
538
1,830
i S l i i S S
1,390
21.6
u u J
u J
u
u u J
J
u u J
77.4
1.2
1-3.
74.5
3.5
2.1
39.7
2.2
70
2.9
0.1
3.9
106
2.2
361
1.8
1.5
5.8
248
15.6
75.2
95,100
4
6.3
5,560
2.6
8,050
mmm s:;?8t?S:;s;:;
4.3
5,020
::::::::::*;|!|i;?K;:::;::
1,570
1.9
22.8
u J
J
J
J
J
J
u J
J
77.4
1.2
1.3
74.5
3.5
2.1
39.7
2.2
70
2.9
0.1
3.9
106
2.2
361
1.8
1.5
5.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.7
39.1
66,000
2.6
506
5,870
HiiZgiSi;;;
1,900
mmm 1,440
13.4
U
U
J
U
J
u
u u J
J
u u J
7 7 4
1.2
1.3
74.5
3.5
2.1
39.7
2.2
70
2.9
0.1
3.9
106
2.2
361
1.8
1.5
5.8
Conventionals
-
-----30
Alkalinity - Bicarbonate
BOD
COD
Hardness (Titrimetric)
Total Cyanide
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Total Suspended Solids
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mgA
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
155
6.1
54.6
180
0026
260
13.3
13
5
5
10
0.5
OOl
10
1
10
281
41.6
211
296
1.1
319
20.3
i iP l i ;
J
J
5
5
10
0.5
0.01
10
1
10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
165
14.3
88.4
208
0.69
186
13.9
24
5
5
10
0.5
0.01
10
1
10
F:\OFlCEAGC\PROJECTS\Work\Crater Resources\Pond discharge limit\TablelPond
AR306569
TABLE 2 2008 Treatment/Discharge Investigation
Crater Resources Superfimd Site
1 of 4
PADEP TEMPORARY DISCHARGE
LIMITS
SAMPLE LOCATION LAB ID SAMPLE DATE MATRIX PARAMETER UNITS
POND WAT-1 902175
2/29/2008 Surface Water
RESULT Q RL
POND WAT-2 902174
2/29/2008 Surface Water
RESULT Q RL
POND WAT-3 902050
2/28/2008 Surface Water
RESULT Q RL Volatiles
~ --~ ~ —
— ~
4,945 — ~
184 ~ — ~ — ~ ~ — — ~ ~ —
820 — ~
466 — — ~ — ~
297
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloropropane 2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether Acetone Acrolein Acrylonitrile Benzene Bromodichloromethane Bromoform Bromomethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane cis-1,2-Dichloroethene cis-1,3-Dichloropropene Dibromochloromethane Ethylbenzene Methylene Chloride Tetrachloroethene Toluene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene trans-l,3-DichIoropropene Trichloroethene Trichlorofluoromethane Vinyl Chloride Xylene (Total)
(ig/L Ug/L Mg/L tig/L Ug/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L MgA. Mg/L Mg/L MgA. Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L
U U
u u u u u u u u u u u u u, u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.2 1.5 6.6 3.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4
U
u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.2 1.5 6.6 3.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 . 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4
U U
u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.2 1.5 6.6 3.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4
Semivolatiies ~ — -. . . . ~ — ~
184 ~ — -~ „
~
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2,3,7,8-TCDD (screen) 2,4,6-Trichiorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenoi 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Nitrophenol
Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L
u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
1 1.2 1.1 1
1.1 2.4 1.6 2.3 1
1.3 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.8
u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
1.4 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.5 3.4 2.2 3.1 1.4 1.8 2 1.6 1.7 2.4
u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
0.9 1.1
. 1 0.9 1
2.2 1.5 2.1 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.6
F:\OFICEAGC\PROJECTS\Work\Crater Resources\Pond discharge limit\Surface Water Table w-Crileria
AR306570
TABLE 2 2008 Treatment/Discharge Investigation
Crater Resources Superfimd Site
2 of 4
PADEP TEMPORARY DISCHARGE
LIMITS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ — 24 ..
13,565 —
0.14 NA .-—
NA — — —
1,286 —
NA — — ~ —
•
57 1837
~ ~
•
— NA ~ 61 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1.4 ~
1,356
SAMPLE LOCATION LAB ID SAMPLE DATE MATRIX PARAMETER 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidme 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Bromophenyl-phenylether 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether 4-Nitrophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzidine Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(g,h,i)peryIene Benzo(k)fluoranthene bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Butylbenzylphthalate Chrysene D ibenz(a,h)anthracene Diethylphthalate Dimethylphthalate Di-n-butylphthalate Di-n-octylphthalate Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene Isophorone Naphthalene Nitrobenzene N-Nitrosodimethylamine N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenyiamine Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene
UNITS Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L
POND WAT-1 902175
2/29/2008 Surface Water
RESULT
1.2
Q u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
RL 5.5 1.4 1.3 1.8 1.2 1
0.2 0.1 0.1 8.1
0.056 0.067 0.2 0.1 0.1 1 1 1
1.2 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.7 1
0.09 1
0.2 1.1 0.8 0.8 1.2 2.3 0.09 0.7 0.2
POND WAT-2 902174
2/29/2008 Surface Water
RESULT
2.5
Q u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u ,u u u u u ,u u
RL 7.6 1.9 1.8 2.5 1.6. 1.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 11
0.077 0.092 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.6 0.3 0.2 1.2 1.7 1.6 1.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.9
1 1.4 0.1 1.4 0.3 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.6 3.2 0.1 0.9 0.2
POND WAT-3 902050
2/28/2008 Surface Water
RESULT Q U
u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
RL 5.1 1.3 1.2 1.7 1.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 7.4
0.052 0.062 0.1
0.093 0.093
0.9 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.8 1.1 1 1
0.1 0.2
. 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.9
0.082 1
0.2 1
0.8 0.8 1.1
. 2.1 0.082 0.6 0.1
PCBs ~ ~ ~
•
. .
Aroclor-1016 ArocIor-1221 Aroclor-1232 Aroclor-1242 Aroclor-1248
Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L
u u u u u
0.2 0.3 0.3
. 0.3 0.3
u u u u u
0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
u u u u u
, 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
F:\OFICEAGC\PROJECTS\Work\Crater Resources\Pond discharge limit\Surface Water Table w-Criteria
AR306571
TABLE 2 2008 Treatment/Discharge Investigation
Crater Resources Superfund Site
3 of 4
PADEP TEMPORARY DISCHARGE
LIMITS ~ ~ — —
SAMPLE LOCATION LAB ID SAMPLE DATE MATRIX PARAMETER Aroclor-1254 Aroclor-1260 Aroclor-1262 Aroclor-1268
UNITS Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L
POND WAT-1 902175
2/29/2008 Surface Water
RESULT Q u u u u
RL 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3
POND WAT-2 902174
2/29/2008 Surface Water
RESULT Q u u u u
RL 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3
POND WAT-3 902050
2/28/2008 Surface Water
RESULT Q u u u u
RL 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3
Pesticides ~ — — ~ ~ — ~ ~ —
~ — — ~ — ~ ~ ~
4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Aldrin alpha-BHC beta-BHC Chlordane delta-BHC Dieldrin Endosulfan I Endosulfan 11 Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde gamma-BHC (Lindane) Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Toxaphene
Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L
u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.2 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.3
-
u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.2 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.3
u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.2 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.3
Total Metals 679 71
3391 --— ~ 27 24 ~ 11
1,413 0.07
— 132 7 —
2.4 141 195
Aluminum Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Manganese Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium Vanadium Zinc
Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L
4.5 26.1
2.3
2020
560
u J J
u u u J
u
u
u u u u u u u u
62.6 3.2 1.7 0.3 • 0.4 1.6 1.7 3.7
39.2 2.7 1.2 0.1 1.8 2.4 4.2 1.4 4.7 3
5.8
11.6 16.8
1.9
1070
1070
ww^
u
J
u u u J
u
u
u u u
u u u u
62.6 3.2 1.7 0.3 0.4 1.6 1.7 3.7 39.2 2.7 1.2 0.1 1.8 2.4 4.2 1.4 4.7 3
5.8
62.7 4.5 25.5
703
646
^^m
J J J
u u u u u
u
u u u
u u u u
62.6 3.2 1.7 0.3 0.4 1.6 1.7 3.7
39:2 2.7 1.2 0.1 1.8 2.4 4.2 1.4 4.7 3
5.8 Conventionals
--
• •
~ 6-9
Ammonia as Nitrogen CBOD-5 Nitrate as Nitrogen Oil & Grease by 1664 pH
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
std units
1.1
7.54
u u u
0.1 . 5 0.1 5.2 0
0.1
7.69
u u u
0.1 5
0.1 5.3 0
0.1 7.5
0.14
7.32 u
0.1 5
0.1 0 0
F:\OFlCEAGC\PROJECTS\Work\Crater Resources\Pond discharge limit\Surface Water Table w-Criteria
AR306572
TABLE 2 2008 Treatment/Discharge Investigation
Crater Resources Superfimd Site
4 of 4
PADEP TEMPORARY DISCHARGE
LIMITS — ~ ~ ~ 30
SAMPLE LOCATION LAB ID SAMPLE DATE MATRIX PARAMETER Total Cyanide Total Dissolved Solids Total Phenols Total Phosphorus Total Suspended Solids
UNITS mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
POND WAT-1 902175
2/29/2008 Surface Water
RESULT 0.2 226
0.068
Q
u
u
RL 0.01 10
0.05 0.03 10
POND WAT-2 902174
2/29/2008 Surface Water
RESULT 0.8 339
0.16 12
Q
u
RL 0.01 10
0.05 0.03 10
POND WAT-3 902050
2/28/2008 Surface Water
RESULT 0.083 188
0.12
Q
.u
u
RL 0.01 10
0.05 0.03 10
F:\OFICEAGC\PROJECTS\Work\Crater Resources\Pond discharge limit\Surface Water Table w-Criteria
AR306573
APPENDIX D
LETTER FROM UPPER MERION TOWNSHIP PUBLIC WORKS
F:\OF;CEAGC\PKOJECTS\Files\2(IUI-«J7\2l)(iy\Hcpons\5-22-FEAS.STUDY APPEMDIX A.doc
AR306574
UPPER MERION TOWNSHIP PUBLIC WORKS / SAFETY & CODES
175 WEST VALLEY FORGE ROAD KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406-1802
610-265-2606 FAX: 610-265-8467
April 30, 2008
Mr. Thomas M. Legel, P.E., PRP Supervising Contractor Advanced GeoServices 1055 Andrew Drive, Suite A Westchester, PA 19380-4293
Subject: Temporary Discharge of surface water from Gulph Mills Office Park to the sanitary sewer
Dear Mr. Legel:
Upper Merion Township (UMT) has received your lasted request for verification that LJMT is unable to accept flow from your site to the Swedeland pumping station. We have again reviewed your request to temporarily discharge surface water into the sanitary sewer system from the Crater Resources CERCLA site located in the Gulph Mills Office Park. As a result of this review, UMT still upholds its original decision that with the current flows in that area, the addition of 50,000 to 350,000 gpd through the UMT collection system in that area would not be feasible. In addition, the Swedeland pumping station which handles the wastewater from that area is in the process of being upgraded to accommodate the current flows from that region.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please feel free to call me at 610-205-8056.
Sincerely,
k i ' ^ '
Janet L. Serfass MIPP Administrator
Co: UMMUA Ronald G. Wagenmann, Twp. Mgr. Robert E. Norman, Dir. Public Works Edward j . O'Brien, jr.. Deputy Director, Wastwater Wayne Brown, Supt. Collection Systems
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SCOTT SIBLEY CHAIRMAN
JOSEPH N. BARTLETT VICE-CHAIRMAN
BARBARA S. FRAILEY EDWARDMcBRIDE
ERIKA SPOTT
TOWNSHIP MANAGER/ SECRETARY-TREASURER
RONALD G. WAGENMANN
TOWNSHIP SOLICITOR
FIRM OF: PIZONKA, REILLEY
BELLO & McGRORY PC.
What people do for themselves dies with them; what people do for their communit\,i lives on AR306575
APPENDIX E
DESCRIPTION OF WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
F:\OFlCEAGC\PROJECTS\Filcs\20()t-H47\3lnl8\Rcports\5-22-FEAS.STUDY APPENDIX A doc
AR306576
Crater Resources SuperiFund Site Quarry 3 Remedial Action Summary of Proposed Surface Water Treatment System
Surface water from each of the three ponds will be pumped using Contractor supplied suction pump capable of providing 250 GPM flow at sufficient output head to reach the water treatment system, push water through the treatment system, and reach the discharge location at IVIatsunk Creek.
Pond 1 is estimated to be the deepest with an estimated bottom elevation of 110 ft. The proposed location for the treatment area is at elevation 145 ft. The proposed discharge location at Matsunk Creek is estimated to be elevation 105 ft. There are many pumps capable of meeting this head and flow criteria.
The water treatment area will be a level or mild sloped area located on the Quarry 3 rim. A potential location is shown on Drawings E201 and E202. The area will be constructed using structural fill and be covered with a 6" stone pad.
The suction inlet hose will utilize a 1/8-inch screen to prevent larger debris from entering the water treatment system. The Contractor will also provide a bank of bag filters to remove solids and prevent them from accumulating in the treatment media. Siemens Water Technologies has recommended using the Model 8-125 psi Bag Filter. Product information is attached.
Several water treatment vendors have been contacted regarding the design of the surface water treatment system. Siemens Water Technology has reviewed the PADEP discharge requirements for 250 GPM flow against the surface water data collected during the 2003 RI and more recently in February of 2008. In general the water has low levels of SVOC that can be easily treated using Granular Activated Carbon. Inorganic concentrations in the Pond water also appear to be low. Some treatment for Selenium, Mercury, and Arsenic will be required. Siemens will be collecting a sample from the Pond water to determine the appropriate treatment.
SVOC treatment will consist of lead and lag banks of Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) absorbers. Siemens Water Technology has reviewed the analytical data for the Ponds and recommends using a total six (6) PV2000 absorbers. The GAC system will be configured iising manifolds with three (3) absorbers in the lead position and three (3) absorbers in the lag bank. Each vessel contains 2,000 lbs of GAC, for a total of 6,000 lbs per bank. The use of multiple smaller vessels is preferable due to limited Site access, however Siemens also, could provide larger PV5000 (5,000 lb GAC) vessels if the Contractor prefers. Preliminary pricing and equipment information has been provided by Siemens via email and is attached.
It is anticipated that inorganics will be treated using Ion Exchange technology. Siemens Water Technology has recommended using a pair of 1X48 vessels operating in a parallel
F;\OFICEAGC\PROJECTS\Work\Crater Resources\Surface Water\Treatment System description.doc AR306577
configuration. If required they could be operated in a series configuration. Preliminary pricing and equipment information has been provided by Siemens and is attached.
Once water has been processed through the treatment system it will flow through a 5-inch fiision welded HDPE pipe to the discharge point at Matsunk Creek. The alignment of the pipe has been reviewed and approved by the Gulph Mills Golf Club. The pipe alignment is shown on drawing E202.
F:\OFICEAGC\PROJECTS\Work\Crater Resources\Surface Water\Treatment System description.doc AR306578
M 8 B R
[ [ \ Model 8-125 psi Bag Filters Low cost filter housings for flow rates to 100 gpm*
These high-capacity bag filters or basket strainers are very tow In cost and offer large dirt holding capacity. These housings are made from carbon steel or stainless
. steel. They use a newly designed clamp cover that is easily removed, reducing time spent on bag change-out. The O-ring seal on the cover ensures a seal. This housing also utilizes our Unistyle design offering you the option of a side or bottom outlet. .There is a 2-inch outlet on the side with a 2-inch plugged drain at the bottom of the housing. The outlet can easily be changed to the bottom by merely moving the plug from the drain to the side outlet.
Features • Permanently piped housings are
opened without special tools • Quick opening cover • Carbon or stainless steel housings • Adjustable-height tripod legs • O-ring seals: Buna N, EPR and Viton® • 125-psi rated housing • Basket material is compatible with housing • Uses standard number 2 size
bags and baskets • Bag/Basket surface area is 4.4 square feet • 2-inch NPT ports
4 0
^n 2.5 ^ n 1.5
I 0
80
.60
.50
.40
.30
.25 20
.15
in
Pipe size: 2
i i ^ l /
i'
A
f f
J M
M w w
f
'Based on housing only. Fluid viscosity, filter bag used, and expected dirt loading should be considered when sizing a filter.
AR306579
M B
\J} Hovif To Order Low Pressure Model 8 Housing
Build an ordering code as shown in the example
Housing
I E x a m p l e .
Options \ ^ ^
8 3 0 , 2 P * 1 2 5 C B P B '
REDUCED-PRESSURE M O D E L S 8 1 5
8 3 0 PIPE S I Z E j , r
2P
OUTLET STYLE
D D E C T I i n i r D A T I I U I -
I
K '-"Hdirs i f t l<|MATERiAfc ' i -L '
304,-Stainless steel = s'*'
. COVER SEAL- f f •«?-'- . '
&?i , m
Buna.N . Ethylene propylene, '
Viton* Fluorelastorher
BASKET TYPE Filter bag basket
11
.[• ' n i l "
= PB-S"s. i*
^ ! ' Filter bags w t specified separately See page 106-109' •' •
(Dimensidm'
Mode l
815 830
21.1 35.9
Dimensions (IN)
2" NPT INLET
1/4" NPT GAGE PORTS 8" CENTERS
U-. 2" NPT ' -DRAIN OR
OPTIONAL OUTLET 9/16 DIA. HOLES ON
12.0 DIA. BOLT CIRCLE
AR306580
STD: 2-0600-8X1 lA INTR_REF_NO
9 0 PLAN VIEW
3" INLCT FMPT
ENLARGED SECTION VIEW B - B
UNDERDRAIN A 5 S E M B L Y - ( S E P A R A T E D )
13 ^ SECTION "A-A"
REAR ELEVATION
\ c \ (FAR SIDE)
'(NEAR SIDE)
(NEM SIDE) (fAR SIDE)
LIST OF COMPONENTS ITEM QTY DESCRIPTION
TANK ASSEMBLY DWG. § PV2000SHEa2
SKID ASSEMBLY DWG. | PV2000SHEET3
BRONZE BALL VALVE, 3 / 4 "
POLY SCREEN ORTHOS PART# N5 R - 3 / 4 " , MPT
CLOSE NIPPLE. SCHD 4 0 3 0 4 SS, 3 / 4 "
MALE ADAPTER, SCH BO PVC, 1 "
PIPE, SLOHED SCH BO PVC, t " x 15" LG
CAP, SCH 80 PVC, SLIP, 1 "
UNDERDRAIN HUB, 3" DIA x 10 1 /2" LG, SCH 80 PVC
CAP, SCH 80 PVC, SLIP, 3
MANWAY ASSEMBLY, 1 1 " x 15"
PUTE, 1.0. Sc SERIAL NUMBER
DECAL, "FOR WATER USE ONLY', 2 1 / 2 " x 4 1 / 4 "
DECAL, "CARBON SERVICE" WHITE MYL^R W/BLUE LEHERS, 4 " x 12"
DECAL, "PV-SERIES", WHITE MYLAR
DECAL, "75 PSIG MAX", WHITE MYLAR
DECAL, "USFILTER/WESTATES" WHITE MYLAR W/BLUE LEnERS
NOTES: DESIGN DATA:
4 8 " DIAMETER PRESSURE VESSEL-75 PSIG(MAX) O 1 5 0 T - N 0 T ASME CODE STAMPED FOR WATER USE ONLY MAXIMUM FLOW RATE: 100 GPM MAXIMUM CARBON CAPACITY: 2 0 0 0 LBS. ACTIVATED CARBON
MATERIAL: HEADS: STD. F & D NON CODE 3 / 1 6 " THICKNESS C.S. SHELL: 3 / 1 6 " THK. 4 8 " OD x 7 2 " LONG C.S. SKID: SA 3 6 - H R
SURFACE PREPARATION: INTERIOR:
SANDBLAST: S S P C - S P - 5 WHITE METAL ABRASIVE: GARNET OR GRIT - PROFILE; 1 .5 -2 MILS COATING: 3M BRAND SCOTCHKOTE 134 THICKNESS: 1 0 - 1 5 DFMT - COLOR: GREEN
EXTERIOR: SANDBLAST: S S P C - S P - 1 0 NEAR WHITE METAL ABRASIVE: GARNET OR GRIT - PROFILE: 1 . 5 -2 MILS PRIMER COAT: RUST PREVENTATIVE EPOXY PRIMER (CARBOLINE 893) THICKNESS: 4 - 6 DFMT - COLOR: RED FINISH COAT: HIGH BUILD POLYURETHANE (CARBOLINE 134HG) THICKNESS: 3 - 4 DFMT - COLOR: BLUE (FED. I.D.|jl15052)
LIFTING RFQUIRFMFNTS:
5 ,200 LBS. MINIMUM RATING. EST WEIGHTS;
1190 LBS. 3190 LBS. 7717 LBS.
EMPTY VESSEL WITH CARBON OPERATING
COMPANY CONRDENTIAL THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN ARE TT1E PROPERTY OF THE USFILTER AND/OR ITS AFRLIATES ("USF"). THE DESIGN CONCEPTS AND INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROPRIETARY TO USF AND ARE SUBMIHED IN CONnoENCE. THEY ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE AND MUST BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE DOCUMENT IS EXPRESSLY LOANED. THEY UUST NOT BE DISCLOSED, REPRODUCED. LOANED OR USED IN ANY OTHER MANNER WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF USF IN NO EVENT SHALL THEY BE USED IN ANY WANNER DETRIMENTAL TO THE INTEREST OF USF. ALL PATENT RIGHTS ARE RESERVED. UPON THE DEMAND OF USF, THIS DOCUMENT. ALONG WITH ALL COPIES AND EXTRACTS, AND ALL RELATED NOTES AND A N A L Y S E S . MUST B E R E T U R N E D TO U S F OR DESTROYED. AS INSTRUCTED BY USF. ACCEPTANCE OF THE DELIVERY OF THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES AGREEMENT TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
DESIGNER
AJA
DATE
9-11-01
• NONE
PV2000 GENERAL ASSEMBLY
USI • •• USFILTER/WESTATES = S = RED BLUFF, CA = • = l-aOO-795-2664
DRAWING
PV2000SHEET1 SHEET
1 OF 5 AR306581
Westates 11711 Reading Road Telephone (530)527-2664 Red Bluff, CA 96080 Facsimile (530) 527-8724
PV2000 & PV2000 SYSTEM
SYSTEM SPECIFICATION SUMMARY
PV2000 Liquid Phase Adsorption Systems are designed to treat a wide range of contaminated process streams. Piping and valves are configured for series, parallel, or vessel isolation flows. The system consists of two (2) adsorbers, skid mounted, with all piping, valves, and gauges assembled for ease of operation. The adsorbers are equipped with underdrains capable of maximum flow rate of 100 GPM.
EACH VESSEL: Vessel Diameter 48" Side Shell Height 72" Overall Height (Approx.) 8'-8" Total Empty Weight / Vessel 1190 lbs Maximum Working Pressure 75 psi @ 150 °F Elliptical Manway at Head 11"x15" Vessel Volume 660 gal. Carbon Capacity 2000 lbs. Carbon Bed Volume-Typical 68 Ft Maximum Flow 100 GPM Empty Bed Contact Time 5.2 min/vessel @ 100 GPM Design Criteria ASME Code Stamping None Material Carbon Steel Supports Skid mounted Lifting Lifting Lugs Seismic Zone 4 Interior Surface Prep SSPC-SP5 Interior Surface Coating 3M ScotchKote 134, 10-15 mil min dft Exterior Surface PrimerCarboline 893 Rust Preventative Epoxy 3 mil min dft Exterior Surface Coating Carboline 134 High Solids Urethane 3mil min dft Standard Color Blue (Federal Standard 15052)
UNDERDRAINS: Lateral Sch 80 PVC Sloted Pipe .010
VALVE ASSEMBLY AND PIPING: Piping 2" or 3"Sch 80 PVC Process Valves 2" or 3" PVC Ball Valves
SYSTEM WEIGHT:
System Shipping weight (vessel with carbon) 3,190 lb System Shipping weight (two vessels, carbon & manifold) 6,600 lb Operating Weight (carbon one vessel) 7,717 lb Operating Weight (two vessels, carbon & manifold) 15,900 lb
6-11-01
oViVENDI J 'WSlGrrcompdny
AR306582
Page 1 of2
Jan Dobinsky
From: Delaurentis, Mark S (WT) [Mark.Delaurentis(@siennens.com]
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 11:08 AM
To: Jan Dobinsky
Subject: RE: Crater Update
Attachments: PV2000GENASSY.doc; PV2000SPECSUM.doc; PV2000 8X30 PD.xIs; Model 8 125.pdf
Jan,
Per our conversation earlier, we will now supply a 6 x PV2000 adsorbers (3 x lead and 3 x lag adsorbers with manifold) for the organic removal portion of treatment to meet 250 gpm and 3 x filter bag housings each capable of handling 100 gpm or 300 gpm total (piped in parallel). Budgetary pricing is as follows:
1st month rent for the 6 x PV2000's filled with ACNS react GAC to include manifold, hoses and cams is approx $15,500 delivered to site...this does not include applicable taxes and fuel and energy surcharges (currently 8.65%)
Additional months rent is $2500 for the 6 x PV2000's, manifold, hoses, etc...
Rental termination is approx $10,000 to include vac out of spent GAC, reactivation and transportation/shipping
3 X 100 gpm bag filters to include 10 initial filter bags are $200 each per month (no piping or hose connections are included nor offered, must be supplied by Contractor) Additional filter bags can be purchased @ $9.00 each.
An all terrain forklift will be necessary to off-load and move the adsorbers into place...supply of the forklift and all loading/unloading must be provided by Contractor unless contracted to perform for additional cost. Siemens WT can supply forklift for $950 per day and labor to off-load and set up the equipment for $210 per hour (4 hour minimum on-site charged portal to portal) We recommend at least a level crushed stone base or steel plates for placing the equipment on at site.
There will be a necessary spent carbon profile/TCLP analysis performed and set up prior to rental termination, price is $250 based on non-hazardous carbon. If spent GAC deemed hazardous, pricing will increase accordingly for hazardous profile approval $750 and $3000 hazardous waste transportation additional charge.
All prices above do not include applicable taxes and fuel and energy surcharges (currently 8.65%, adjusts quarterly)
I'm still awaiting a response from our WWIX Group for the inorganic treatment requirements, recommended equipment and budgetary costs. Once received, I will forward along.
Thank you for your consideration of Siemens WT.
Sincerely,
Mark DeLaurentis, Sr Mid-Atlantic Account Manager Siemens WT (908)400-3156 mark.delaurentis(a)siemens.com
From: Jan Dobinsky [mailto:jdobinsky(aiadvancedgeoservices.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 2:40 PM
5/14/2008 AR306583
Page 1 of 3
Jan Dobinsky
From: Thomas Legel
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:03 AM
To: Jan Dobinsky
Subject: FW: Crater Resources Superfund Site
Tom Legel
610-840-9162
From: Delaurentis, Mark S (WT) [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 4:16 PM To: Thomas Legel Cc: Szczesniak, Adam S (WT) Subject: RE: Crater Resources Superfund Site
Tom,
Also, I don't think a treatability study is necessary since the componants,.VOC/SVOC's listed are typically treated with GAC.
Good Luck,
Mark
From: Thomas Legel [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 3:36 PM To: Delaurentis, Mark S (WT) Subject: RE: Crater Resources Superfund Site
Mark,
Thanks for the information. Do you see any need for a treatability study? In reviewing your discussion, I see that acetone and carbon disulfide are key factors. We are skeptical about the acetone, as we have never seen it in any other media and it is a common lab problem. There are only tow occurrences of carbon disulfide, both less that 2 ug/1, and there are no limits on the discharge. How would the carbon usage change if these two compounds were not present?
Tom Legel
610-840-9162
From: Delaurentis, Mark S (WT) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 5:48 PM To: Thomas Legel Cc: Szczesniak, Adam S (WT) Subject: RE: Crater Resources Superfund Site
5/14/2008 AR306584
2~ CAM i GROOVE MEDIA OUT
12" X 16 ' ELLIPTICAL MANWAY
2 ' CAM & GROOVE MEDIA IN
TOP VIEW
3 / 4 " DRAIN
I — 3 " ELANGED VESSEL "; CONNECTION
2" CAW & GROOVE MEDIA OUT
RING HEADER PLAN VIEW
NOTES: ;
1. THIS DRAWING 15 TO SHOW PIPING AND EQUIPMENT FOR CUSTOMER APPROVAL.
2. PROVIDE STAINLESS STEEL SCREENS AT SEPTA UNDER DRAIN.
3. VESSELS SHALL'BE CARBON STEEL 100 PSI, NON-ASUE CODE.
4. FINISH INTERIOR WITH SCOTCHKOTE 134, PREPARE AND APPLY STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS.
5. PIPING MATERIALS SHALL MEH: CS PIPE ASTM A - 5 3 GRADE B (ERW); CS FITTINGS SA-234, ASME S16.9; SS THREADED FITTINGS ASTM A - 3 5 1 ; SS PIPE ASTW A - 3 1 2 , SS BW .HniNGS ASTM A - 4 0 3 ; Ml THREADED FIHINGS ASME B-1 5.3.
6. FINISH EXTERIOR WITH POLYURDHANE 3 - 4 MILL DFT OVER EPOXY PRIMER 4 - 6 MIL DFT APPLIED PER ; M A N U F A C T U R E R S RECOMMENDATIONS.
7. SYSTEM ESTIMATED WEIGHTS: SHIPPING: 1,710 LBS. WITH RESIN MEDIA: 5,460 LBS.
i OPERATING: 8,065 LBS.
8. GROUTING BY^OTHERS IF REQUIRED.
9. DESIGNED FOR SEISMIC ZONE 4.
10. SYSTEM PROCESS CONNECTIONS: 4" 150,f RF FUNGES, BOLTS STRADDLE CENTERLINE AS SHOWN.
11. MEDIA CAPACITY: 60 C.F.
12. WAX. PROCESS FLOW: 340 GPW
13. OPERATING TEMPERATURE 150' F MAX.
12" X 16" ELLIPTICAL MANWAY ,
\ 4 ' - o
ff^ ff^
Oi
- 2 " CAM 4 GROOVE MEDIA OUT
SIDE VIEW
2" CAM k GROOVE MEDIA OU
3 / 4 " DRAIN
FRONT VIEW MEDIA OUT DETAIL
THIS DOCuuDT AND M j . s r o m u n o N C O K T A M E I I htWW *RC THT M W O m Of T>« USO-TCT *ND/OR m * ( T ( > n 3 { I r a n . THE OEacw co»tc£pra * H O uroRiuTXJt* CCTn»IMED HCTDH ARE M t O c n c i A f f r TD usr * w * « s u o u m r D n coMnocHct . i > r r ARC UDI TRANSFTRABLZ AMD UU!J BE USED ONLY FOR TMC ^m^OSC row WHKH THE OOCUUEMT S CtPRESSLT LCWCD. THET UUST MOT H DfSCUSED. REPFroOUCED LOWED OR U S C D I N A N T D T H E D UWWEN mmioUT TH[ EaJ^HESS WRfTTEN C0N5EHI Of USr »< NO EVENT S t m . TVCT BE USED W AWl-UAH><? OETKiyENI'J. TO T>l[ MTIKCST V U 0 . HA. PATEHT RtOfTL ARE RESRVU). UPON THE DEUAMD OF USr, TMH OOCUUEMT, ALONG WtTM A a COP«ES AND EXTTIACT^, AND ALL RELATED NOTES AND AMAJ.Y5ES. UUST BE n r t u R f l E D I D U S ' OH K S m m S . AS »1STWJCIED BT USF. ACCtFtMKX Of THE DEUVEBY o r TUB DOCUUENT CONSTTTUTZS «REEuEf fT TO THESE TERUS AND CONDITWMS.
DATE 12/28/M
LiANACER D A T E :
ION EXCHANGE 4 8 " DIA. SINGLE TANK S.ALES DRAWING
USk = = S USFILTER/WESTATES - = - = - = ^ RED BLUFF, CA ' B = T ^ = ' = I-SOO-795-2664
orrAMnc 1 IX48-ST-SALES 1 OF
AR306585
Page 1 of 3
Jan Dobinsky
From: Szczesniak, Adam S (WT) [[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 10:18 AM
To: Delaurentis, Mark S (WT); Jan Dobinsky
Subject: RE:
Attachments: IX48-ST-SALES(2006-03-20).pdf
Jan,
For 250gpm arsenic treatment we would use a pair of the attached 1X48 vessels operating in parallel. Vessels are 48" diameter filled with our GFH media. We will quote as only a single stage of treatment vs. lead-lag to reduce the cost but please check with the local officials if they need two stages of treatment.
We have very similar requirements to Mark's comments below and just require prefiltration before the media to prevent solids from fouling the media bed. The arsenic media may need an occasional backwash while in operation. Operation in the winter months is acceptable as long as the system remains in a heated environment to prevent freezing and damage to the system.
Pricing; Mobilization - $27,900 (for two units, first month rental and waste profile analysis) Rental - $1500/month rental each additional month for the pair of vessels Demobilization - $2500 Pricing does not include shipping, taxes, permit costs.
Adam Szczesniak Product Manager - Wastewater Ion Exchange Siemens Water Technologies Cell 860-593-2063 Office 860-828-3309 Efax 203-286-1049
Confidentiality Note: Tliis e-mail message and any attachments to it are intended only for tire named recipients and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not one of the intended recipients, please do not duplicate or fonward this e-mail message and immediately delete it from your computer.
From: Delaurentis, Mark S (WT) Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 11:06 AM To: Jan Dobinsky Cc: Szczesniak, Adam S (WT) Subject: RE:
Jan,
I wanted to respond to your letter from last week now that I've had a chance to discuss with Wil Perez.
Our main concern would be that our large rental equipment would be placed onto a flat, solid surface (steel plates or crushed stone) and access to these units via a passable roadway of approx 12' in width. We would also
5/14/2008 AR306586
APPENDIX F
DISCHARGE PIPE ALIGNMENT
F \OFlCEACC\PROJECTS\Fili»\2001-847\2008\Rcpons\5-22-FEAS.STUDY APPENDIX A doc
AR306587
SDMS US EPA Region III Imagery Insert Form
SiteNam«: CJlJ^=^ekJZ- 'e j< .^r<^vx j^ . -^ ty< '^^ Oocunwnt 10:| Q \ 0 ^ ^ \ ' ( >
D So fM ImagM in this docui iMnt may b« illcgibto or unavailabl« In SOMS. Pf«as« s««
r«ason(s) Indlcatad IMIOIIV:
ILLEGIBLE du« to bad source docuinents. Imagefl(s) in SOMS equivatflnt to hard copy.
Spacify Typa of Oocuni«nt(t) / CommantK
D IndudM COLOR or RESOLUTION variations. Unl«9a ottMcwiM noted, theas pages are available in monochrome. The source document page(s> is mors legible than the images. The original document is availabis for vlevving at the Superftind Records Center.
Specify Type of Oocunan^s) / Comments:
D RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI-R): Restricted or copyrighted documents that cannot be imaged.
Specify Type of Documant(s) / Commants:
El
UNSCANNABLE MATERIAL: Oversized or FormaL Due to certain scanning equipment capability ibnitatlona, the
document page<s) is not availat)le in SOMS. The original documtnt is available for vis^' Inr* <it the EPA Region 3 Superflind Records Centsr.
Specify Type of Docunent(s) / Convnsnts:
Document is available at the EPA Region 3 SuperfUnd Records Center.
Specify Type of Oocunient(s) / Comments:
AR306588
APPENDIX G
CREEK DISCHARGE CALCULATIONS/EVALUATION
F:\OFICEACQPROreCrS\Files\200l-847\2008\Rcpons\5-22-FEAS.STUDY APPENDIX A.doc AR306589
ADWCED i^LedServices
Engineering for the Environment. Planning for People,
X r'.
I ;.'cf; sp
Am.^ ^ ^ ^ s r
< ^ / o
en
c e s
'^''^ " - \ ' ^ = / ^ / 7 - rs
A ^ s a H . 8 AC 0 = -^"^ CG^^UF o-Misfc: Pftat I pLfe QTcAx -xsi)
- [ , - O.M«4 k^^. L ' > 5 ^ r ^ W . ^ . -P - t c " Z a - * i v r - - V i n , ^
-L
SHEET / OF - ^
BY ,_ ) A N J
PROJECT NO. / < ^ ^ PROJECT NAME C/f4rjr/?^
CHK. BY "TThL^
DATE S : / o /aB DESCRIPTION / 7 = ^
. DATE S / f y / c ' ^^Pfe/Tg
/Ctg
AR306590
ADWCED ^^LeoServlces
Engineering for the Environment Planning for People.
^ - /tebr/i) Di'sc/iAme ira«© t?<2rt/s
^ S o £/>yyi = O.SG c<=s
•- f t JbiEp tRosicNi A1J6 Sco»»^e*5T **>u_u-n«KJ r6KiT<^«.»_ ^^^^Jv 'VU-
t pLPvi
I
y \ / ^
3 - EVALv^ArTlosl
"F^pkfAtuw f^KEM-T vtJ ~7t(E- c:<2^eE~<: A N D »S SI&MVF=-IC»>^TUVJ Less
/V ArT:>C>rr/a^ TUC ./fltr^tnivm ^AOf/^ /^ / / ^ - / ?A/ ' ^*/=liet^i^ l > ^ / £ t v CfinBl?//^
WILL BE~vS£b -re> ^ ^ e u e t ^ - r £?rcs ro* \ / Ofi: - r ^ j ^ - s ^ ^ ^ S ,
A^ S u e / / "Tf^^ ^f^fi/HlT OA - r v ^ ^SC> ^ o r r t Jbt^cJ^Ai^Sr^ /-xa?A-i
SHEET «S ~ O F ' ?- PROJECT NO. .^g2y<g'(!'^7 PROJECT NAME / ^ A T W ^
BY ^ J A K J
CHK. BY y / T i L , DATE S / i a y p a DESCRIPTION /=7=^ e - ^ ^ g £
DATE . f / ' S ^ ^
AR306591
3lf AR306592
REGION 5
in
o a.
D
o cc
• 1,0 15 20 [30 ; 60 1.5 2 3 • 6 • minutes ; hours
Storm Duration Fig. G. Rainfall intensity-duration-frGQuency curves for Region 5.
: - 12
24
V^ AR306593
AR306594
ADVmCED jC^,.«;oSeivlce$
Engmterir^f3fihtEnvmnmaitt^atttiirlg/ar People.
1055 Andrew Drive, Suite A - West Chester, PA 19380 (610)840-9100- Fax (610) 840-9199
PROJECT: CRATER RESOURCES SUPERFUND SITE
SUBJECT; Time of Concentration (Tc) Calculations Quarry 3 Discharge to Matsunk Creek
SHEET: OF BY: JAN CHK'D: -7TAL-
DATE: 5/8/2008
Time of Concentration calculations with the application of the SCS TR-55 methodology.
Watershed or Subarea Designation: Drainage To Matsunk Creek
Upstream of Proposed Q3 Discharge
SHEET FLOW
Segment ID Surface Description (Table 3-1) Manning's Coefficient (Table 3-1) Flow Length, ft (total <= 150) Two Year Rainfall (in) Land Slope (ft/ft) Computed Tt, hrs.
AB Dense Grass
0.240 150 3.4
0.100 0.17 0.17
SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW
Segment ID Surface Description (paved/unpaved) Flow Length, ft Watercourse slope (ft/ft) Average Velocity (Figure 3-1) Computed Tt, hrs.
BC Unpaved
1,650.0 0.046
3.4 0.134408602 0.13
CHANNEL FLOW
Segment ID Cross sectional Area (sf) Wetted Perimeter, (ft) Hydraulic Radius, (ft) Channel Slope (ft/ft) Manning's Roughness Coefficient, n Computed Velocity, (fps) Flow Length, (ft) Computed Tt, hrs.
CD 17.3 14.2 1.2
0.012 0.030
6.2 2951 0.13 0.13
Watershed or Subarea Tc 0.44 26.16
hrs. min.
F:\OFICEAGC\PROJECTS\Work\Crater ResourcesXFFS TcCald AR306595
Chapter 3 Time of Concentration and Travel Time Technical Release 55 Urban Hydrology for SmaU Watersheds
Figure 3-1 Average velocities for estimating travel time for shallow concentrated flow
.50
Average velocity (ft/sec)
3-2 (210-VI-TR-55, Second Ed., June 1986) (^h AR306596
FIGURE 21 Riprap Apron Design, Minimum Tailwater Condition
pisai 'azis dBJdi.y ^^p CO I
eg
,dBJdiy azis y N. CD m ^ CO
a: D: a: a: a: 01 o
• >
(U TJ c o "o •D
> 01
• • •
'> o D. I— o --. •D C ro OJ tb! <n <u c
_o "S o in
•D
ro o
C
a. he
_Q)
< E p
T3 I )
O X
>
O in
T3
363-2134-ip08 /April 15, 2000 / Page 116
AR306597
