SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

w • • 1 Doug O'Neal Kearney-KPF Prove-Out Report May 14, 2003 Page 2 of 3 When the system was restarted in January 2003 at an initial flow of 142 g.p.m. (which was later raised to 153 g.p.m.) and the maximum concentration of 1,4, Dioxane was 200 pg/L, the power requirement of the UV system would be 69.77 kW based upon the previous cited report. On page 10, Section 6, Prove-Out . Activities and Results, June 2002 - October 2002, the second paragraph states that initial concentrations were as high as 260 pg/L and the final effluent (after treatment) was 12 pg/L which was stated as caused by residual leaching of the Carbon. This may have actually been caused by the insufficient exposure or residence time in the reactors. The power requirement for reduction from 260 pg/L to 2 pg/l_ is 73.74 kW. - 2. Page 11, Section 8 Discussion of Prove-Out Results/Evaluation of Treatment System Performance, first paragraph, last sentence, the statement is made, "However, these constituents are destroyed by the air stripper.", is incorrect. Air stripping is a physical process in which the volatile organic compounds are partitioned from groundwater by increasing the surface area of the contaminated water exposed to air. The air stripper removed the volatile organic contaminants from water and transferred it to the air. 3. Appendix A states that the design flow rate of 168 g.p.m. is to be used for sizing the reactor(s). As stated previously this flow rate will negatively impact the performance and capabilities of the UV/OX system. Recommendations 1. Engineering Service Unit (ESU) recommends sampling and monitoring of the emissions from the treatment system air stripper for contaminants of concern. The information obtained can be used in calculating on a mass basis the destruction efficiencies of the UV/OX system as well as the overall efficiency. The emissions from the stripper may be an air pollution issue. 2. Correct Table 3 to remove the Adjusted Results column as it is incorrect to subtract the results of the Lab Blank from the sample results. Additionally, the sample identified as TSIN on 9/5/01 at 8:20 which was received by the West Coast Analytical Service, Inc is invalid as the 1 liter bottle was broken as stated in the chain-of-custody form dated 9/6/01. Include in all future reports the fact that the sample was received broken and sufficient amount of fluid was collected for analysis from the Zip-lock bag in which the sample was shipped was analyzed. 3. ESU recommends that consideration be given to upgrade the current system with a larger reserve capacity. The treatment system design basis should be