Memo: Follow-up to focused IRM FS, 12/6/83, w/appendix & · PDF fileSFUMD RECORDS CTR 1851-00747 CH2M mill engineers planners economists scientists! I/ ..1. ACv-i / A? Seattle Off

SFUMD RECORDS CTR1851-00747

CH2Mmill

engineersplannerseconomistsscientists

/! I .

.1.

ACv-

i / A?

Seattle Off ice • 1500 TMth Avenue S.E. Bellevue. Washinjton 98004 206/453-5000

MEMORY CH2MHHILL

TO: Neil Ziemba/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FROM: Steve Conklin/CH2M HILL

DATE: August 3, 1984

RE: San Gabriel Predesign

PROJECT: W69427.00

This memorandum is a followup to the San Gabriel BasinFocused Feasibility Study dated December 6, 1983. Since thefacility design of the Initial Remedial Measure (IRM) may bequite complex, it was decided that it would be prudent tostudy the recommended IRM in more detail.

The Focused Feasibility Study evaluated nine alternativesfor providing the Rurban, Richwood, and Hemlock Water Mutualswith reliable, clean water supply. The Hemlock Mutual hasalready installed an activated carbon system and is not beingconsidered for further IRM activity.

Air stripping was found to be the most appropriate solutionfor the Rurban and Richwood Mutuals. Since these Mutualsare relatively small, they present several design challengesthat ordinarily are not present in typical air strippingsystems. These challenges include:

1. Peak Factor

These systems have flow rates that range from zeroto over 1,000 gallons per minute.

2. Operational Simplicity

These systems are essentially operated by the Mutualmembers who are generally not trained to operatecomplex systems and als.o would probably rather notdevote the time to perform extensive routine main-tenance tasks.

3. Limited Available Area

There is only a modest amount of area available atthe Rurban Mutual site and almost none at theRichwood Mutual sites.

MEMORANDUM to Neil ZiembaPage 2August 3, 1984W69427.00

4. Close Proximity to Neighbors

The sites are very close to residences that wouldbe sensitive to noise generation/ especially atnight.

As more information became available on the existing watersystems for these Mutuals, it became apparent that specialconsiderations would have to be taken to provide them with asystem that would be both reliable and easy to operate andmaintain.

Three alternative systems were developed to be evaluated indepth that would respond to these challenges. These alterna-tives include two air stripping alternatives, one with reser-voir storage and one without, and activated carbon. Activatedcarbon was re-evaluated because of the cost impact of thenew air stripper designs and because of new, more completeinformation on carbon system performance which allows moreaccurate design with less contingency.

PROCESS DESIGN

FLOW RATES

The capacities of the treatment systems at the Mutuals arebased on the flow rates of the production wells. The currentflow rates have been estimated according to the flowmeterreadings and power usage records. Water meter readings indi-cate that the flow rates are approximately 550 gpm for eachwell at the Rurban Mutual Water Company and 560 gpm for eachwell at the Richwood Mutual Company. However, the 1983 powerusage metered by the Southern California Edison Company hasbeen evaluated, in conjunction with the 1983 Watermaster — ~~>water production records and well facility data, and indicatesflow rates of approximately 250 gpm for each of the wells atthe Mutuals. The 25- to 40-horse.power motors for these wellscan only allow well discharges.in the range of 200 to 450 gpmat the estimated system head, which consists of the liftfrom groundwater levels and discharge head of 135 to 145 feet(58 to 62 psi) into the distribution system.

There appear to be inconsistencies in these flow rate esti-mates. These inconsistencies will be investigated by check-ing power usage records, water meter calibrations and wellpump and motor data. Until the inconsistencies are resolved,total production rates of 1,000 gpm will be assumed for eachMutual as a conservative basis for treatment capacities.


CONTAMINANT LEVELS

Contamination levels for trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloro-ethylene (PCE) and carbon tetrachloride (CTC) have been eval-uated according to historical and recent water quality testsfor well samples at the Mutuals. The historical test resultsindicate the predominant presence of PCE in the groundwater

have widely fluctuated within a range of one to. The fluctuations have far exceeded the State's

action level of 4 ppb. The other volatile organics haveremained below the State action levels of 5 ppb.

The historical and recent test results are summarized asfollows.

CurrentContaminant

Historical Contaminant Levels in pphLevels in ppb (1/82-2/84) (6/19/84)TCE PCE CTC TCE PCE CTC

Rurban Homes ,Well No. 1 ND to 0.2 1.0 to 7.3 ND ND 4.2 NDWell No. 2 ND to 0.1 1.3 to 54.1 ND ND ND ND

RichwoodWell No. 1 ND to 0.68 11 to 96 ND ND 46 NDWell No. 2 ND to 1.6 24 to 92 ND ND 12 ND

Historical test results are included in Appendix.ND = not detectable. /_ _ _ _ _ - - -- •••••• &• „•••• •Based on these test results, a PCE level of ^00 ppjb has been r<"" /<selected as the design contaminant loading to^pfbvide conser- ''' •'"'•vatism above the measured levels. -.-- wi~*- .AIR STRIPPING

The preliminary design of the air stripping towers for theMutuals is based on a computer program developed for airstripping performance calculations. The computer programhas been established according to an empirical models (Onda,et al.) for mass transfer published in literature . Because

Perry, R. H., and C. H. Chilton. Chemical Engineers Handbook,McGraw-Hill Company. Fifth Edition.


the mass transfer and air stripping performance is affectedby several tower parameters, the appropriate process designcriteria are determined by conducting a sensitivity analysisof specific design parameters (liquid and gas rates, removalefficiencies, and tower dimensions).

The results of the sensitivity analysis are summarized inFigure 1. Figure 1 indicates that the contaminant removalefficiency, air-to-liquid ratios, and liquid loading ratesare the parameters which have the greatest impact on thetower design. Appropriate evaluation of these design param-eters becomes necessary.

o Removal Efficiency. The air stripping conceptualdesign is focused on the removal of tetrachloro-ethylene, which is the predominant contaminantdetected in the water quality tests. Based on aconservative estimate of the initial concentration

p Q ( of tetrachloroethylene (100 ppb) and the requiredaction level of 4 ppb, a 96 percent removal effi-

\J' ciency is required.

o Air-to-Water Ratio. Based on the sensitivity analy-sis and review of literature discussing similarair stripping towers in Southern California, air-to-water ratios of 20:1 to 50:1 on a volume basiswill achieve the removal rates of tetrachloroethylenenecessary to produce potable water from groundwaterat the Mutuals. The selection of the appropriateair-to-water ratio is based on operational experi-ence and economics. At ratios of 20:1 and below,uneven distribution of air through the packed mate-rial has occurred and created operational problemsin pilot and full-scale facilities. As air-to-waterratios increase, energy requirements and costs forthe tower blowers become greater. An air-to-waterratio of 30:1 appears t,o be appropriate.

o Liquid Loading Rate. The liquid loading rate fora tower receiving a water flow of 500 gpm from onewell varies directly according to tower diameter.The sensitivity analysis indicates that as theliquid loading rates increase above 12,000 Ibmole/hr/sq ft and the tower diameters fall below5 feet, the pressure drop becomes higher and results

0.IdO

0

2o

PACKING DEPTHLOADING VS PACKING DEPTH FOR % REM.

0.5

a % REM - 90

0.7(Thousands)

LOADING (GPM)K REM - 96 r. REM - 98

-/'^ l U


in the need to size for larger fan motors. Addi-tionally the packing depths approach 18 feet andraise concerns for additional support requirementsfor the packed bed and sidewalls of the towers.As the liquid loading rates decrease below 5,000 Ibmole/hr/sq ft and the tower diameters increaseabove 8 feet, the tower dimensions become lesseconomical in terms of packing material volume andtower construction. Based on this analysis a diam-eter of 7 feet appears appropriate.

The preliminary design of the air stripping systems requiretwo air stripping towers in parallel at Rurban Homes MutualCompany and at Richwood Mutual Water Company. Each towerwould be capable of treating 500 gallons per minute for atotal treatment capacity of 1,000 gallons per minute at eachMutual. Each tower would be approximately 7 feet in diameterwith a packing depth of approximately 16 feet. The overalltower height to the top of the discharge stack would be ap-proximately 25 feet. One fan for each stripping tower wouldbe required. The fans would be sized for an air flow rateof 2,000 cubic feet per minute and a pressure drop of 1 inchof water. The power requirements for each fan at these operat-ing criteria, assuming 60 percent efficiency, is 2 hp.

The preliminary design is subject to changes based on thecost optimization analysis of the facilities which will beconducted in the final design.

ACTIVATED CARBON

The carbon system was designed for a 10-minute contact timeat the maximum flow rate. Since the flow rate is not known

/.,-, J7/> exactly at this time, two subalternatives of 500 gpm and00CTgpft)were evaluated.

f ^ Recent data show that the expected carbon consumption forJ' these chemical concentrations is between 0.20 Ib per 1,000 gal-

lons and 0.40 lb_p_er 1,000 gallons. The operating cost wasbased on ( ." .Illx per 1, 0 0 0 gallons.

MEMORANDUM to Nell ZiembaPage 6August 3, 1984W69427.00

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS

ALTERNATIVE I—AIR STRIPPING WITHOUT RESERVOIR STORAGE

This alternative is the original system envisioned in theFocused Feasibility Study. In this system the contaminatedwell water is pumped through the packed tower with the exist-ing well pumps (see Figure 2). The clean water is then pumpeddirectly from the bottom of the packed tower into the existinghydropneumatic tank. The disadvantage of this system isthat the new pumps will cycle on and off continuously as theexisting well pumps do now. This will cause excessive equip-ment wear and may cause electrical power surges in the neigh-borhood. Another problem with continual cycling is that itwill be turning on and off at night and may cause objection-able noises.

f This alternative will require a fairly sophisticated control7 system. The intended control scheme is to have the existingwell pumps controlled, as they are now, by the hydropneumatictank pressure. When the pressure drops in the hydropneumatic

'y tank, the well pumps will come on. As the containment areaunder the packed tower fills with water, the booster pumps

* will come on and pump to the hydropneumatic tank. The booster, -;«' pumps will have a variable-speed drive that will match the

,'f> flow of the well pumps. When the setpoint pressure in thehydropneumatic tank is reached, the well pumps and the boosterpumps shut down. There will have to be many interlocks toassure that this will operate successfully in all situations.

The advantages of this system are that it is less expensiveand takes less area than Alternative II. A layout for thisalternative is shown in Figure 3. Both Alternative I andAlternative II may require installation of a drainage pipeof up to 1,000 feet long to handle overflows.

ALTERNATIVE II—AIR STRIPPING WITH RESERVOIR STORAGE

The most common way water systems handle peaking problems,such as those experienced with these water mutuals, is toprovide reservoir storage. In this alternative the wellpumps pump into the packed tower (see Figure 4). The waterout of the packed tower then is discharged into a reservoir.

- Booster pumps pump out of the reservoir into the hydropneu-f matic tanks. The reservoir will be sized at 60,000 gallons

PRODUCED WATERDISINFECTION

EXISTINGHYDROPNEUMATIC

FIGURE 2PROCESS DIAGRAM

ALTERNATIVE I: STRIPPING WITHOUT STORAGE

TO HYDROPNEUMATIC .PUMP HOUSE

FIGURE 3PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN


-txl-i£2J ^

OVERFLOW

FAN•••I

OVERFLOW

WELL PUMP WELL PUMPNO. 1 NO. 2

DRAIN

TOWER)NO. 2

WASTE

TOWERNO. 1

PACKINQ

EWASTE

DISINFECTANTPUMP

O


H

€ i) Q 5TRESERVOIR

EXISTINGHYDROPNEUMATICTANK

TO SYSTEM


ALTERNATIVE II: STRIPPING WITH STORAGE


which will provide enough storage so that the system willusually not have to run at night, thus solving the potentialnoise problems.

:, This alternative will have the booster pumps controlled from. ,< , the hydropneumatic tank pressure, just as the existing well

*,- /( pumps are now. The well pumps will be controlled by the£.X ,, level in the reservoir. At a low level the well pumps will

turn on. They will then pump until the reservoir is fullU* ." and shut themselves off. The only additional instrumentation

( ^ needed above what is in existence now is a level gauge with$ '' level switches.

'th ," i Y.*' This alternative has the disadvantage of being expensive andof requiring a larger area than Alternative I. A layout ofthe alternative is shown in Figure 5.

ALTERNATIVE III—ACTIVATED CARBON

This alternative was one of the more expensive alternativesin the Focused Feasibility Study. Recently received informa-tion makes is possible to design carbon systems with a greaterdegree of accuracy, thus reducing the contingency required.

The carbon system would be placed just downstream from theexisting hydropneumatic tanks (see Figure 6). The waterleaving the hydropneumatic tanks would go through two stagesof carbon adsorption then into the distribution system.During carbon replacement there would be nly one stage ofcarbon. The. u gigiiia.we;uld b

• 1-nrf 1-imo at.COQ

There would be no control system for this alternative. Sam-ples would be taken once a month, from between the stages,and analyzed to determine when the carbon should be replaced.

The advantages of this system are extreme simplicity of opera-_^_ tion and small space requirements; Also, in Richwood's case,

?* '" ( a separate carbon system could be built at each well, eliminat-/ j ir ing the need for a connecting pipe. Another advantage is' ''"A that water will taste similar to what it tastes like now.

An air stripper removes all the carbon dioxide out of thewater leaving a "flat" taste.

The disadvantages are a higher operating cost than strippingand no control of cost increases. For example, if the level

TO HYDROPNEUMATIC

1/60.000 GALLONU RESERVOIR

If

PUMP HOUSE



oEXISTINGHYDROPNEUMATICTANK

WELL PUMPNO. 1

TO SYSTEM

ACTIVATED CARBON

WELL PUMPNO. 2


ALTERNATIVE III: ACTIVATED CARBON


of contamination doubled, the carbon system operating costwould double but the air stripper system may not have anycost increase.

COSTS

The costs for these alternatives are shown in Figure 7.

SUMMARY

The Focused Feasibility Study was updated by looking at threealternatives in a higher degree of detail. The advantagesand disadvantages of each alternative are:


Advantages

1. Low capital cost2. Low operating cost3. Low area requirement .

Disadvantages .v\A * ^

1. Complex control svstem "*«2. Less reliability . '3. May leave water "flat" tasting4. Potential noise problems


Advantages

1. High degree of reliability2. Quite at night3. Low operating cost

Pi sadvantage s

1. High capital cost2. Large area requirements3. May leave water "flat" tasting

Figure 7

San Gabriel IRMCosts for Air Stripping Towers

Item Rurban Richwood

/v

FansPumpsChlorine SystemOverflowPipingEquipment InstallationElectrical and I&CSoundproofed BldgMobilization and Site Prep

Total w/o Reservoir

$80,080$5,000$20,000$10,000$50,000$15,000$50, 000$80,000$20,000$20,000

$80, 000$5,000$20,000$10,000$50, 000$15,000$100,000$80,000$20,000$20,000

$350,000 $400,000

A60,000 Gallon Reservoir

Total w/ Reservoir

$150,000 $200,000

$500,000 $600,000

Annual Operating Cost

PowerMaintenance

Total Annual Cost

$5,000 $5,000$10,000 $10,000

$15,000 $15,000

Costs for Activated Carbon SystemRurban or Richwood Mutuals

Item

PipingChlorine SystemInstallationMobilization and Sitework

Total Capital Cost

Peak Flow500 GPM 1,000 GPM

$150,000 $200,000$15,000 $20,000$10,000 $10,000$35,000 $55,000$10,000 $15,000

$220,000 $300,000


Activated CarbonMaintenance

Total Operating Cost

$21,000$5,000 $5,000

$26,000,400



Advantages

1. Low capital cost2. Should not alter taste of water3. High degree of reliability4. Simple to operate5. May not require interconnect of wells for Richwood6. Low area requirement7. Quiet

Pi sadvantage s

1. Higher operating costs2. No control of future operating costs

sm/se9981a

• w ijii I"

i$

oo

PROJEC

6

37

72.

G

of

o/o

"RET

• U

Richwood KitualWater Gonpany

1SA1W-19Q03

J.

4115 Rlcnwxd,El Monte

11/29/8201/04/8302/01/8303/02/8305/04/83

01/12/8001/23/8010/31/8001/07/8101/12/8103/18/8107A3/8107/15/8107/23/8109/23/8109/23/8102/DO/8202/18/8203/04/8203/05/8204/14/8205/00/8206/06/8206/18/8206/23/8206/23/8206/30/8207/00/8207/23/8208/00/82

10.55.41.62.11.60.1

0.180.16

0.49ND

0.50.60.30.30.1

2.88.76.36.9

12.5111213

17.841

27.023

23.42326383929253021

26.1146

fPPPP

HHHHHPHPHPPPHPHPPHHHPHPHP

Well II South

ND* H

P

Not DetectedDepartment of Health ServicesWater Purveyor

"-" Is used when the coipound was not analyzed for or when It Is unclear If It was either not analyzed for or was not detected.

. . . . . . . . -i jwrg?

Richwood MutualHater Company

g BHBBBHHHBwflHF

... ..

1SA1H-15Q01

v

i

!HE ^ BHHHHMK- V*^^*sS^pff!*£Py' 3v?K>!5.>*f*KIv T^f»r'~ "

"•

* . ..

(

* • •< • r

4155 Rlchwood,El Monte

' • • •

ySjjtiijjSijjgK(BAK/Kr08/18/8209AXV8209/30/8210/00/8210/27/82

..11/00/8212/22/8212/29/82 .

. 01/00/5302/16/8304/00/83

04/13/8305/03/8305/17/8306/01/83

01/12/8001/23/8010/09/8011/14/8001/07/8103/18/8103/26/8107/15/8107/23/8109/23/8109/23/8102/00/8202/18/82

"•ÎV* 7>- 3R^^ !

'.

0.48.

0.68-- '----..

.• «••

1.61.70.982.2.

1.53.0-....••

T3B.OT39.0

1939.0

2950.0

503846274574745488957862

.-21253310343128243336

32.4

i •" ''«»":" 1- '-----•

• -•• •--•.. •.---•

.-

0.15<D.10--

<0.10--

«•

--—

T^HHPHPHPHHPHPPPHHHH

HHHHHPHPHPPPH

1

VGA

Well n North

"

NO- tot Detected* H - Department of Health Services

P « Water Purveyor

•-" is used when the carport was not analyzed for or tfen It Is unclear If 1t was either not analyzed for or was not detected.

"iV^TTS^ry

11 > •• ' .

.-

•

ft ^^^HpS - : *"?/3 HJP3SiJi-' "W? ^1™! :

i

....

' "

•

. . . . . .

f

•

^^04/14/8206/00/8206/08/8206/18/8206/23/8206/23/8206/30/8207/00/8207/07/8207/23/8203/00/8208/05/8206/18/8209/00/8209/30/8210/00/8210/27/8211/00/8211/22/8201/00/8304/00/83

04/07/8304/08/83

" 05/17/83 '

'"JSFf

- :

.

.

.."' - '

-

.

.

. •

.

. :- ...

0.95_

1.2.

1.6• * * .

.

. •

.

.

.—

' ' !

1 329.9 !

2030

50.042.033.0

3035.0

4539.031.27

4745.045.0

1945.0

2744.0

4443.0

27,71

6853868192

' ' . i

X^K«T*__ •....'-.........._..

> -._-.—

HPPHHHPHPHHPHHPHPHPHPPPPHHH

•

" , :. ' :_ /• •

VOA

VOA

N0« Itot Detected*H » Departnent of Health Services

P « Water Purveyor

"-• Is used when the compound was not analyzed for or then it Is unclear If It was either not analyzed for or was not detected.

Rurban HomesMutual WaterGonpany

1S/11W-14001

•

« • .

';

.-

|»1P ^W !!IW^ *

. . . . .

9 •• . .•

... .

^lo/ST11/14/80(0/07/8101/12/8102/19/8102/19/8106/17/8107/15/8107/23/8108/12/8109/16/8110/14/8111/18/8112/06/8112/W8101/19/8202/18/8203/11/8203/16/8206/12/8206/08/8206/17/8206/18/8206/18/8206/23/8206/30/8207/07/8207/14/8207/23/8208/05/8203/17/8209/22/82

nMIHIIIB!r«M(r<0.100.14<b.io

•»...«» ™ND...

<D.l..

0.2••

.

-.-•-...-..

^^^^nQ2^^Ê

^F15

9.89.88.27.76.57.58.37.01115U

5.59.26.9

.4.26.74.13.34.47.34.34.64.04.44.76.14.696.36.43.7

fS'<D.10

•»

_ - ....

• ...'--

• . »

.

.

.-..••

.

.

.

.•.~

? HHHHHHPPHP

HPHHHHHPHHHP

' Wellflttorth

10:12 ajn.10:15 ajn.

ND« Not Detected*H « Department of Health Services

P « Water Purveyor

•-" Is used when the coipound was not analyzed fbr or when It 1$ unclear If It was either rat analyzed fbr or was rat detected.

.T-WWF "IPWL.yB'^,™-,,

•

Rurban HomesRitual WaterCotpany

NO » Not Detected

• • •

1S/11W-140D21 ..

1 .'

. '-'.,

... .

10/27/82U/22/8212/22/8212/29/8202/16/8304/07/8305/17/83

01/12/8010/31/8011/14/8001/07/8101/12/8102/19/8106/17/8107/15/8107/23/8103/12/8109/16/8110/14/8111/18/8112/06/8112/18/8101/19/8202/18/8206/08/8206/18/8206/23/8206/30/8207/07/8207/23/82

„---

.---

1.44UO<D.100.08

<D.10....NO-.-

<0.1..

0.1--..•ft

"

5.9 ] -1.80.43U340.290.311.81.7.15201819

24.3111819

7.3111611

11.019

25.418.236.038.032.733.440.035.76

-•

. i

----_

<D.10<D.10----•.---------•--.•

HHHHHHHH

HHHHHHPPHPPPPPHPPHHHHHH

VGAVGA

5050Cogswel1

Well 12 South

* H = Department of Health ServicesP « Water Purveyor . . .. . ..

"-" is used when the coipjund was rot analyzed for or *en it is unclear if it was either not analyzed for or wasnot detected.

MEMORANDUM ObMBHlLL


FROM: Steve Conklin/CH2M HILL

DATE: August 3, 1984


PROJECT: W69427.00


The Focused Feasibility Study evaluated nine alternativesfor providing the Rurban, Richwood, and Hemlock Water Mutualswith reliable, clean water supply. The Hemlock Mutual hasalready installed an activated carbon system and is not beingconsidered for further IRM\activity.


1. Peak Factor



These systems are essentially operated by the Mutualmembers who are generally not trained to operatecomplex systems and also would probably rather notdevote the time to perform extensive routine main-tenance tasks.



MEMORANDUM to Neil Ziemba \ fiPage 2 V*August 3, 1984W69427.00


The sites are very close to residences that wouldbe sensitive to noise generation, especially atnight.



PROCESS DESIGN

FLOW RATES

The capacities of the treatment systems at the Mutuals arebased on the flow rates of the production wells. The currentflow rates have been estimated according to the flowmeterreadings and power usage records. Water meter readings indi-cate that the flow rates are approximately 550 gpm for eachwell at the Rurban Mutual Water Company and 560 gpm for eachwell at the Richwood Mutual Company. However, the 1983 powerusage metered by the Southern California Edison Company hasbeen evaluated, in conjunction with the 1983 Watermasterwater production records and well facility data, and indicates1flow rates of approximately 250 gpm for each of the wells atthe Mutuals. The 25- to 40-horsepower motors for these wellscan only allow well discharges.iri the range of 200 to 450 gpmat the estimated system head, which consists of the liftfrom groundwater levels and discharge head of 135 to 145 feet(58 to 62 psi) into the distribution system.



CONTAMINANT LEVELS

Contamination levels for trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloro-ethylene (PCE) and carbon tetrachloride (CTC) have been eval-uated according to historical and recent water quality testsfor well samples at the Mutuals. The historical test resultsindicate the predominant presence of PCE in the groundwaterlevels which have widely fluctuated within a range of one to100 ppb. The fluctuations have far exceeded the State'saction level of 4 ppb. The other volatile organics haveremained below the State action levels of 5 ppb.


CurrentContaminant jp

Historical Contaminant Levels in(pph)PrLevels in ppb (1/82-2/84) (6/19/84T""TCE PCE CTC TCE PCE CTC

Rurban Homes ,Well No. 1 ND to 0.2 1.0 to 7.3 ND ND 4.2 NDWell No. 2 ND to 0.1 1.3 to 54.1 ND ND ND ND


Historical test results are included in Appendix.

ND = not detectable, ait1-"' "' C

Based on these test results, a PCE level of 100 ppb has beenselected as the design contaminant loading to provide conser-vatism above the measured levels.

AIR STRIPPING . '






o Removal Efficiency. The air stripping conceptualdesign is focused on the removal of tetrachloro-ethylene, which is the predominant contaminantdetected in the water quality tests. Based on aconservative estimate of the initial concentrationof tetrachloroethylene (100 ppb) and the requiredaction level of 4 ppb, a 96 percent removal effi-ciency is required.

o Air-to-Water Ratio. Based on the sensitivity analy-sis and review of literature discussing similarair stripping towers in Southern California, air-to-water ratios of 20:1 to 50:1 on a volume basiswill achieve the removal rates of tetrachloroethylenenecessary to produce potable water from groundwaterat the Mutuals. The selection of the appropriateair-to-water ratio is based on operational experi-ence and economics. At ratios of 20:1 and below,uneven distribution of air through the packed mate-rial has occurred and created operational problemsin pilot and full-scale facilities. As air-to-waterratios increase, energy requirements and costs forthe tower blowers become greater. An air-to-waterratio of 30:1 appears t.o be appropriate.


uo0zSco


a X REM - 90

0.7(Thousands)

LOADING (GPM)t % REM - 96 K REM - 98

4-

' V U





ACTIVATED CARBON QQ^ f

The carbon system was designed for a 10-minute contact time 'at the maximum flow rate. Since the flow rate is not knownexactly at this time, two subalternatives of 500 gpm and1,000 gpm were evaluated.

Recent data show that the expected carbon consumption forthese chemical concentrations is between 0.20 Ib per 1,000 gal-lons and 0.40 Ib per 1,000 gallons. The operating cost wasbased on 0.40 Ib per 1,000 gallons.





This alternative will require a fairly sophisticated controlsystem. The intended control scheme is to have the existingwell pumps controlled, as they are now, by the hydropneumatictank pressure. When the pressure drops in the hydropneumatictank, the well pumps will come on. As the containment areaunder the packed tower fills with water, the booster pumpswill come on and pump to the hydropneumatic tank. The boosterpumps will have a variable-speed drive that will match theflow of the well pumps. When the setpoint pressure in thehydropneumatic tank is reached, the well pumps and the boosterpumps shut down. There will have to be many interlocks toassure that this will operate successfully in all situations.



The most common way water systems handle peaking problems,such as those experienced with these water mutuals, is toprovide reservoir storage. In this alternative the wellpumps pump into the packed tower (see Figure 4). The waterout of the packed tower then is discharged into a reservoir.Booster pumps pump out of the reservoir into the hydropneu-matic tanks. The reservoir will be sized at 60,000 gallons

-cxi—

WELLPUMPNO. 1

WELLPUMPNO. 2

tFAN

FAN

OVERFLOW

A OWERNO. 2

OVERFLOW

WASTE

OWER10. 1

PACKING

WASTE

DISINFECTANT1 PUMP


fl—IS

BOOSTER PUMP/8(VARIABLE SPEED)


TO SYSTEM

\ FIGURE 2PROCESS DIAGRAM


TO HYDROPNEUMATIC PUMP HOUSE



HXH

FAN

OVERFLOW


DRAIN

NO. 2

OVERFLOW

WASTE

Iv/

1

TOWERNO. 1

PACKING

WASTE

DISINFECTANTPUMP

O


il OEXISTINGHYDROPNEUMATICTANK

RESERVOIR

TO SYSTEM





This alternative will have the booster pumps controlled fromthe hydropneumatic tank pressure/ just as the existing wellpumps are now. The well pumps will be controlled by thelevel in the reservoir. At a low level the well pumps willturn on. They will then pump until the reservoir is fulland shut themselves off. The only additional instrumentationneeded above what is in existence now is a level gauge withlevel switches.

This alternative has the disadvantage of being expensive andof requiring a larger area than Alternative I. A layout ofthe alternative is shown in Figure 5.

ALTERNATIVE HI—ACTIVATED CARBON


The carbon system would be placed just downstream from theexisting hydropneumatic tanks (see Figure 6). The waterleaving the hydropneumatic tanks would go through two stagesof carbon adsorption then into the distribution system.During carbon replacement there would be only one stage ofcarbon. The system would-be—dooignod for 3& minutoc of—eea—-icl


The advantages of this system are extreme simplicity of opera-tion and small space requirements. Also, in Richwood's case,a separate carbon system could be built at each well, eliminat-ing the need for a connecting pipe. Another advantage isthat water will taste similar to what it tastes like now.An air stripper removes all the carbon dioxide out of thewater leaving a "flat" taste.


TO HYDROPNEUMATIC ItTANKS

RELIFT PUMPS

il1/60.000 GALLON

|URESERVOIRII

PUMP HOUSE



o EXISTINGHYOROPNEUMATICTANK

WELL PUMPNO. 1

TO fYSTEM

ACTIVATED CARBON

WELL PUMPNO. 2

4?



p,MEMORANDUM to Neil Ziemba \Page 8August 3, 1984W69427.00


COSTS


SUMMARY



Advantages

1. Low capital cost2. Low operating cost3. Low area requirement

•„ ., , . k, /• '•: *-Disadvantages /H"1/ 6 ' " ' t/————————— /,)'|r-i( ><'^C. /'"••••;'"~.,-< ^-'•'-•"'•'' •. '

1. Complex control system^ (!/J t>! ,-/ . > ,__t- • ( / , • i '^' ' •-'-"•-• .""-..I2. Less reliability t-// _^_ •+—•'' f ,-3. May leave water "flat" tasking rv /4. Potential noise problems ^

ri-f •, '• • -4.ALTERNATIVE II—AIR STRIPPING WITH RESERVOIR STORAGE h /

i? /•.,:/'Advantages ^ /•

1. High degree of reliability2. Qui|t]e) at night3. Low operating cost

Disadvantages


Figure 7



Towers, (id »<u i $80,000 $80,000Fans -' $5,000 $5,000Pumps $20,000 $20,000Chlorine System $10,000 $10,000Overflow f& n <=> < o :T :: >.•.-., ~* dcc<-.^ $50,000 $50,000Piping $15,000 $15,000Equipment Installation $50,000 $100,000Electrical and I&C $80,000 $80,000Soundproofed Bldg $20,000 $20,000Mobilization and Site Prep $20,000 $20,000

Total w/o Reservoir $350,000 $400,000

60,000 Gallon Reservoir , $150,000 $200,000,!.--:,-vft, , |>-., -,-,/!•/ ;:;r r>-^ ^V^1' <?•-•' ———————————Mou^n ''/ t l°w/ se'r1/oirr r J0! r $500,000 $600,000


Power $5,000 $5,000Maintenance $10,000 $10,000

Total Annual Cost $15,000 $15,000

Jp'. '- ,-'-! 'i ~ l

Costs for Activated Carbon System peoplecîRurban or Richwood Mutuals '

Peak FlowItem 500 GPM 1,000 GPM

Vessels^, / / i c ! t''>.^>c,l c^ ix>o $150,000 $200,000Piping $15,000 $20,000Chlorine System .. $10,000 $10,000Installation - ' $35,000 $55,000Mobilization and Sitework $10,000 $15,000

Total Capital Cost $220,000 $300,000

Annual Operating Cost n.600Activated Carbon »ci,CuBei $21,000Maintenance $5,000 $5,000

Total Operating Cost $f£,D00 $26,000



Advantages


Disadvantages


sm/se9981a

0 r*

151-"4-!

' tD, S{IH O3 (t00 Q.

\ \ \

1!'i.Si

— I>

- 1t ».

J » 4 - f .

y,«i

i . .

P^ * ^ ffp^ ^pB^B|yBBPB^HB^Hl OTl ^ ^ E^ S '

Rlchwood MutualWater Ccnpany

1SA1W-15Q03

',- • •

;.

p Ei lii i ^" " ' . ' - • • " " " " ~ " . T I


... ..- -

•

,^^^^ffj^j

11M/&211/29/8201/04/8302/01/8303/02/8305/04/83

01/12/8001/23/8010/3 1/8001/07/81

• 01/12/8103/18/8107A3/81

-07/15/8107/23/8109/23/8109/23/8102/00/8202/18/8203/04/8203/05/82(W4/82*05/00/8206/08/8206/18/8206/23/8206/23/8206/30/8207/00/8207/23/8208/00/82

^•flEffB

10.55.41.62.11.60.1

0.180.16

.0.49N)- •-..-....-..'---..-™

My fiiff iil'llSi'Sli jli' iiii^ iiW .l

ois0.60.30.30.1

2.88.76.36.9

12.5111213

17.841

27.023

23.42326383929253021

26.1146

----

-

-.-----•---.-

• ---

'--•---

"

- ^g^X': y^fSiaf^^^^RE^^K^^^T^^^^^ • .

PPPPPP

HHH

^ HHPHPHPPPHPHPPHHHPHPHP

•^^ jfe^yt ya^ya.-. i

Well H South

^s..êgj sr

t jL'OfSff'.^f^^*^

NO « Not Detected* H - Department of Health ServicesP » Water Purveyor

"-" Is used when the coipound was not analyzed for or *hen It Is unclear 1f 1t was either not analyzed for or was not detected.

}<i>"" 'ilPWWIf- "•"**••»" 'SWW*. -*«KHf-. . 'WS*'.''*iJ !l»«|fl«M>W'

Rlchwood MutualWater Coipany

> - - •••• .- • • - - • • • • '•**&'-

1S/11W-15Q01

i •

SifeyiiiflSa-st' \i f' sjBwHHMHF' ?••- • ^ •*"'*"**i ^T ,"VV*L fl V'*t*->*^*-»^. '. '

"• .

* • ..

.

' ' " ' '

4155 RIchMOOd,El Monte

SS«« ip^^^08/18/8209/00/8209/30/8210/00/8210/27/82

-.11/00/8212/22/8212/29/82 .01/00/83de/16/8304/00/83

04/13/8305/03/8305/17/8306/01/83

01/12/8001/23/8010/09/80iiyi4/ao01/07/8103/18/8103/26/8107/15/8107/23/a09/23/8109/23/8102/00/8202/18/82

I — . ''

-0.48-

0.68.. '----..

-• *-

1.61.70.982.2-

1.53.0--...4*

"SsSSiiivitSnsSup^

39*.019

39.029

50.0503346274574745488967862

.-21253310343128243336

32.4

1 ' — ' ."-------

- .• .---.-----•

.-

0.15<D.10--

<D.10-•---*

v H.HPHPHPHHPHPPPHHHH

HHHHHPHPHPPPH

8BBete5Sfre£:-'3

VGA

Well 12 North

ND« Not Detected* H * Department of Health ServicesP « Water Purveyor

"-" Is the ompound was not analyzed for It Is If It was either not for or was not detected.

- "•"-•" J •"lws*''» ! ^WS»• - .', f; j \, V^ll^^T

« • » ••'.

I;

S^PH^^WPPI SSP

i

,

"

•

• - • - . .

• * *

*^f$ftA/82 "T"03/05/82 '04/14/8205/00/8206/06/8206/18/8206/23/8206/23/8206/30/8207/00/8207/07/8207/23/82OB/00/8203/05/8208/18/8209/00/8209/30/8210/00/8210/27/8211/00/8211/22/8201/00/8304/00/83

04/07/8304/06/8306/17/83 '

"!• •. :.--.

" - '.

-.

. •-. ..

"/"<

0.95.

1.2.

1.6• « ^ ,

-- •«k

.

.

PfS?29.9 '

2030

50.042.033.0

3035.0

4539.031.27

4745.045.0

1945.0

2744.0

4443.0

27,71

6853868192

^Trv^T• ..•...••»_.-..__.«•_._.«•._._

f^^^^^rHPPHHHPHPHHPHHPHPHPHPPPPHHH

."-.. • •. .;•- '.''" -

VOA

VGA

ND» Not Detected*H « Department of Health Services

P * Water Purveyor

"-" Is used when the coipound was not analyzed for or when it is unclear if it was either not analyzed for or was not detected.

HMHvlBIIHIHHIIHIIIH

Rurban Homesftitual WaterCompany

m^^^^^^^^^ssBs^^^^^^fi^m^^n^^^n^^s^^tKi!W^9WM9aflMPIVIRPHlHHHHIHRHHHHHIBBP

1S/11W-14C01

•

',

,-.

r .• >• .- .- • - - . • ' • • . - • •

• - • • • •

, . ..

•

HBHS|E$5i HHu•B^^pMM

10/31/BQF11/14/8001/07/8101/12/81G2A9/8102/19/a06/17/a07/15/a07/23/a03/12/a09/16/81io/i4/aii/is/a12/OG/ai2/ia/a01/19/8202/18/8203/11/8203/16/8205/12/8206/08/8206A7/8206/18/8206/18/8206/23/8206/30/8207/07/8207A4/8207/23/8208/05/8203/17/8209/22/82

;*- - . ' ' , • ' > IV*--;-: ":-; '• -.-VVV. -';->--..«.«-."-•-- . . — . - < • — . — - -m ..vj, . ,--i::<~<"./r*i?oi.. — ill1 •>i«.L,^.,\!.ti>,,.iI,.:'iiLi^»:;^.,^..^: ., _ ...«.„_',.!... > " L ;!.,Bl^^^^^^^^^K

' <D.10<D.100.14

<0.10•...«• •ND-..

0.1..

0.2..

.-.--_-..---

'- • - . - . - • . - -••-.in-- -.= ..- ,;sF^14r

159.89.88.27.76.57.58.37.0111511

5.59.26.9

.4.26.74.13.34.47.34.34.64.04.44.76.14.696.36.43.7

••^rar-^Tw;<D.10O.10

-- .-------...'._

. ,_..tm

-

-

-

.

_

.

-

-

-

•

•••BMHMVrsWWIi!'**-lfS* '•*• ' •'' H

HHHHHPPHPPPPPHPP .HPPHPHHHHHPHHHP

Well ft torth

10:12 ajn.10:15 ajn.

NO - Not Detected ^?* H » Department of Health Services **££

P » Water Purveyr . *e3?

•-" is used Mhen the compound was not analyzed for or Mhen it 1$ unclear If it was either not analyzed for or was not detected.

' ir iP^PiispRipBBl

•

Rurban HonesWjtual WaterConpany

1 ' t

1S/11W-14C02

-'.

fi^fiPkîiliiiJIililpiîi

• , .

, ^

•••

^^•BMritfiEiEjjljMifefrittp

09/30/8210/27/8211/22/8212/22/8212/29/8202/16/83M/07/8305/17/83

01/12/8010/31/8011/14/8001/07/8101/12/8102/19/8106/17/8107A5/8107/23/8103/12/8109/16/8110/14/8111/18/8112/08/8112/18/8101/19/82

.02/18/8206/08/8206/18/8206/23/8206/30/8207/07/8207/23/82

^gHUJPRMIpm

.

.

.

.

-

-

.

-

1.40.10<D.100.08

<0.10..mm

.

NO..-

<0.1-.

0.1..--_•

5.91.80.430.340.290.311.81.7

—

15201819

24.3111819

7.3111611

11.019

25.418.236.033.032.733.440.035.76

.

.

.' _

_._-—

<D.10<D.10..._...„._L._.__.__-

HHHHHHHH


ND - Not Detected

p~^^^«V«Bi^^www«vipm*r^»vmw

VOAVOA

5050 Cog swell

Well 12 South

-^* H = Department of Health Services *jg|

P « Water Purveyor . . . . . . C«L

"-" is used when the conpound was not analyzed for or Wien It Is unclear If It was either not analyzed for or was not detected.

MEMORANDUM

1851- 00747

CH2MHHILL


FROM: Steve Conklin/CH2M HILL Re <- -C •Eptf &</.

DATE: August 3, 19846 AUG 1984


PROJECT: W69427.00




1. Peak Factor






00032






PROCESS DESIGN

FLOW RATES

The capacities of the treatment systems at the Mutuals arebased on the flow rates of the production wells. The currentflow rates have been estimated according to the flowmeterreadings and power usage records. Water meter readings indi-cate that the flow rates are approximately 550 gpm for eachwell at the Rurban Mutual Water Company and 560 gpm for eachwell at the Richwood Mutual Company. However, the 1983 powerusage metered by the Southern California Edison Company hasbeen evaluated, in conjunction with the 1983 Watermasterwater production records and well facility data, and indicatesflow rates of approximately 250 gpm for each of the wells atthe Mutuals. The 25- to 40-horsepower motors for these wellscan only allow well discharges in the range of 200 to 450 gpmat the estimated system head, which consists of the liftfrom groundwater levels and discharge head of 135 to 145 feet(58 to 62 psi) into the distribution system.


9


CONTAMINANT LEVELS



CurrentContaminant

Historical Contaminant Levels in pphLevels in ppb (1/82-2/84) (6/19/84)

TCE PCE CTC

ND 4.2 NDND ND ND

ND 46 NDND 12 ND

Historical test results are included in Appendix.ND = not detectable.

Based on these test results, a PCE level of 100 ppb has beenselected as the design contaminant loading to provide conser-vatism above the measured levels.

AIR STRIPPING


RurbanWellWell

HomesNo. 1No. 2

RichwoodWell No.Well No.

12

NDND

NDND

TCE

b to 0.2to 0.1

to 0.68to 1.6

PCE

1.1.

1124

0 to3 to

toto

7.354.1

9692

CTC

NDND

NDND






o Air-to-Water Ratio. Based on the sensitivity analy-sis and review of literature discussing similarair stripping towers in Southern California, air-to-water ratios of 20:1 to 50:1 on a volume basiswill achieve the removal rates of tetrachloroethylenenecessary to produce potable water from groundwaterat the Mutuals. The selection of the appropriateair-to-water ratio is based on operational experi-ence and economics. At ratios of 20:1 and below,uneven distribution of air through the packed mate-rial has occurred and created operational problemsin pilot and full-scale facilities. As air-to-waterratios increase, energy requirements and costs forthe tower blowers become greater. An air-to-waterratio of 30:1 appears to be appropriate.


Q.yaoz20

PACKING DEPTHLOADING VS PACKING DEPTH FOR K REM.

0.5

o K REM - 90

0.7(Thousands)

LOADING (GPM)X REM - 96

0.9

o % REM - 98

>VÛ





ACTIVATED CARBON

The carbon system was designed for a 10-minute contact timeat the maximum flow rate. Since the flow rate is not knownexactly at this time, two subalternatives of 500 gpm and1,000 gpm were evaluated.

Recent data show that the expected carbon consumption forthese chemical concentrations is between 0.20 Ib per 1,000 gal-lons and 0.40 Ib per 1,000 gallons. The operating cost wasbased on 0.40 Ib per 1,000 gallons.









HXh-

WELLPUMPNO. 1

WELLPUMPNO. 2

t PRODUCED WATERDISINFECTION

FAN

OVERFLOW

VOWER

NO. 2

OVERFLOW

WASTE

DISINFECTANTPUMP BOOSTER PUMPS

(VARIABLE SPEED)


TO SYSTEM



TO HYDROPNEUMATIC .PUMP HOUSE



PACKING

DISINFECTANTPUMP


flO

RESERVOIR


DRAIN •*




TO SYSTEM



This alternative will have the booster pumps controlled fromthe hydropneumatic tank pressure, just as the existing wellpumps are now. The well pumps will be controlled by thelevel in the reservoir. At a low level the well pumps willturn on. They will then pump until the reservoir is fulland shut themselves off. The only additional instrumentationneeded above what is in existence now is a level gauge withlevel switches.




The carbon system would be placed just downstream from theexisting hydropneumatic tanks (see Figure 6). The waterleaving the hydropneumatic tanks would go through two stagesof carbon adsorption then into the distribution system.During carbon replacement there would be only one stage ofcarbon. The system would be designed for 30 minutes of con-tact time at 200 gpm.


The advantages of this system are extreme simplicity of opera-tion and small space requirements. Also, in Richwood's case,a separate carbon system could be built at each well, eliminat-ing the need for a connecting pipe. Another advantage isthat water will taste similar to what it tastes like now.An air stripper removes all the carbon dioxide out of thewater leaving a "flat" taste.


IIIIIIITO HYDROPNEUMATIC IITANKS

RELIFT PUMPS

| /eO.OOO GALLONj y RESERVOIRII

PUMP HOUSE




WELL PUMPNO. 1

TO SYSTEM

ACTIVATED CARBON

WELL PUMPNO. 2



Figure 7

San Gabriel IRMCosts for flir Stripping Towers


Towers $80,000 $80,000Fans $5,000 $5,000Pumps $20,000 $20,000Chlorine System $10,000 $10,000Overflow $50,000 $50,000Piping $15,000 $15,000Equipment Installation $50,000 $100,000Electrical and I&C $80,000 $80,000Soundproofed Bldg $20,000 $20,000Mobilization and Site Prep $20,000 $20,000

Total w/o Reservoir $350,000 $400,000

60,000 Gallon Reservoir $150,000 $200,000

Total w/ Reservoir $500,000 $600,000

flnnual Operating Cost

Power $5,000 $5,000Maintenance $10,000 $10,000

Total flnnual Cost $15,000 $15,000

=====::=:


Peak FlowItem 500 GPM 1,000 GPM

Vessels $150,000 $200,000Piping $15,000 $20,000Chlorine System $10,000 $10,000Installation $35,000 $55,000Mobilization and Sitework $10,000 $15,000

Total Capital Cost $220,000 $300,000

flnnual Operating Cost

Activated Carbon $21,000 $21,000Maintenance $5,000 $5,000

Total Operating Cost $26,000 $26,000



COSTS


SUMMARY



Advantages


Disadvantages

1. Complex control system2. Less reliability3. May leave water "flat" tasting4. Potential noise problems


Advantages


Disadvantages




Advantages


Disadvantages


sm/se9981a

2*4

••HILL IS-LîAhs^^—^^^^—^ll*.^*^ SHEET NO. _ l__ _ of

PROJECT NO./

fppO

6

37

72-

7.3.

/.-O

6/0

t,-z,fA 3

.vv«»

Sovu^rtV'v^* VfO^'f

oQW Â«- FITAV^>

fl*^ -\-US>«

^WcxDW-et'V*/u»/ iHr uy^<w-->

Richwood MutualWater Corpany

• *' - - -••.**• 7. • • • : - "•*«-

1S/11W-15Q03

f^^^^^ro^^^WH^^^


- ••

MRHHMMM^m&11/29/8201/04/8302/01/8303/02/8305/04/83

01/12/8001/23/8010/31/8001/D7/8101/12/8103/18/8107A3/8107/15/8107/23/8109/23/8109/23/8102AJO/8202/18/8203/04/8203/05/8204A4/82"05/00/8206/03/8206/18/8206/23/8206/23/8206/30/8207/00/8207/23/8203/DO/82

10.55.41.62.11.60.1

0.180.16.-

0.49to....._..._J-...-._

^5*0.50.60.30.30.1

•»

.2.88.76.36.9

12.5111213

17.841

27.023

23.42326383929253021

26.1146X

mMm__•.-—

-.______

_•.._.___•_.....--

PPPPPPHHHHHPHPHPPPHPHPPHHHPHPHP

Well 11 South

NO - Not Detected*H » Department of Health Services -

P = Water Purveyor

"-" is used when the ccnpound was not analyzed for or when It is unclear 1f 1t was either not analyzed for or was not detected.

Richwood MutualWater Company

"

1SA1W-15Q01

i

IMBMMip

. -

* ' " ;

4155 Rlchwocd,El Monte

BMBH®®^06/18/8209AXV8209/30/8210AXV8210/27/82

..ll/DO/8212/22/8212/29/8201/00/8302/16/8304AXV83

04/13/8305/03/8305A7/8306/01/83

01/12/8001/23/8010/D9/8011/14/8001/07/8103/18/8103/26/8107/15/8107/23/8109/23/8109/23/ffl02/00/8202/18/82

^^^^^^ l ^^^^HjH^m^ ^ H-_

0.43.

0.68.- '-----.

_• n-

1.61.70.982.2-

1.53.0.•

---—

T3B.OT39.0

1939.0

2950.0

503846274574745488967862

„.21253310343128243336

32.4

Vo lS^W^

._....-

- _ •----...--

.

.0.15

<0.10--

<D.10------

•pmH"HPHPHPHHPHPPPHHHH

HHHHHPHPHPPPH

i

VW

Well K forth

NO = Not Detected* H « Department of Health Services ^*

P * Water Purveyor • • . . . . EJ>

"-" is used when the compound was not analyzed for or vten it Is unclear If 1t was either not analyzed for or was not detected.

'"*"•' — ^^^^BB •• •• •iB^H^H" »"7^?^^T^?^^^^TF^^5^^5*S8»

1 - r t f t : 1 <~M T

• • • •'.

v^ . ™ 7J r5??^^^^^^^^^^^??^^Fl*cgP^^TjI fl/| iQff?9?

!

/ <

• - - . .

!03/D5/82 '04/14/8205/00/8206/06/8206/18/B206/23/8206/23/8206/30/8207/00/8207/107/8207/23/8203/00/8208/05/8203/18/8209/00/8209/30/8210/00/8210/27/82ll/DO/821V22/8201/00/8304/00/83

04/07/8304/06/8306A7/83 '

^Bc^B^ p"«• •. ;

.

.

..

" -

-

.

.

.

-

-

-

.x.

_

0.95.

1.2.

1.6

-....

• • ;

^w?29.9 '

2030

50.042.033.0

3035.0

4539.031.27

4745.045.0

1945.0

2744.0

4443.0

27.71

6853868192

*\-*% a*? *.

.-_-.--.-._....-.---_._

P^^^THPPHHHPHPHHPHHPHPHPHPPPPHHH

^^W!W^^^*

VOA

VGA

NO- Not Detected*H - Department of Health Services

P « Water Pirveyr

"-" Is used when the coipomd was not analyzed for or vhen it is uxlear If it was either not analyzad for or was not detected. f\

• ^^^^J^^^BIS^Rurban HomesfUual WaterCompany

i^Srr^^^^^

•

• p i . *

t

^«iiii« i iiiw| iipj |jjjii |11/14/8001/D7/8101/12/8102/19/8102/19/8106/17/8107/15/8107/23/8108/12/8109/16/8110/1V8111/18/8112AS/8112A8/S101/19/8202/18/8203/11/8203/16/8206A2/8206/08/8206/17/8206/18/8206/18/8206/23/8206/30/8207/07/8207A4/8207/23/8208/05/8208/17/8209/22/82

<D.100.14<b.io-.--

ND.--

<0.1..

0.2.-..--.-----.-•

169.89.88.27.76.57.58.37.01115U

5.59.26.94.26.74.13.34.47.34.34.64.04.44.76.14.696.36.43.7

<D.10.___.-_-....'..

, __.__.-.-.---

•-^

HHHHHPPHPPPPPHPP .HPPHPHHHHHPHHHP

10:12 ajn.10:15 ajn.

NO * Not Detected* H « Department of Health Services

P = Water Purveyor

"-" is used when the ccnpound was not analyzed for or vhen it 1$ uxlear if it was either not analyzed for or was not detected.

"* *5*.T**

1

Rirban Honesftitual WaterCorpany

umpuppli

1S/11W-14002

PWPPIHipHPBp

t . .

m m

frrf » • i»»1-rt rti-' £*fti

09/30/8210/27/8211/22/8212/22/8212/29/8202/16/8304/07/8305/17/83

01/12/8010/31/8011/14/8001/D7/8101/12/8102A9/8106/17/8107/15/8107/23/8108/12/8109/16/8110/14/8111/18/8112/03/8112/18/8101/19/8202/18/8206/08/8206/18/8206/23/8206/30/8207/07/8207/23/82

*• I M j- | *

Lv^>;^cn^«*44

.

.--.-.-

1.40.100.100.08

<0.10_...NO.-^

<0.1..

0.1...--—

v . - » i :_« - -..

^^cijraîttt'5.9

IJB0.430.340.290.31U1.7^

15201819

24.3111819

7.3111611

11.019

25.418.236.033.032.733.440.035.76

L. : ::_.-

' .•-.-^

0.10O.10.._•

__.__.1__

.____.-

3^BB3BEiE^^99SpM

HHHHHHHH


VGAVOA

5050Cogswe11

Well 12 South

NO * Not Detected ^^^*H = Department of Health Services ^SSL

P = Water Purveyor .

"-" is used when the compound was not analyzed for or when it 1s uxlear if it was either not analyzed for or was not detected.

MEMOHANDUM CH2MBHILL


FROM: Steve Conklin/CH2M HILL*.

DATE: August 3, 1984 '6 AUG 1984


PROJECT: W69427.00




1. Peak Factor


' v. * 2",-. Operational Simplicity









PROCESS DESIGN

FLOW RATES

The capacities of the treatment systems at the Mutuals arebased on the flow rates of the production wells. The currentflow rates have been estimated according to the flowmeterreadings and power usage records. Water meter readings indi-cate that the flow rates are approximately 550 gpm for eachwell at the Rurban Mutual Water Company and 560 gpm for eachwell at the Richwood Mutual Company. However, the 1983 power•usage -metered by the Southern California Edison Company hasbeen evaluated, in conjunction with the 1983 Watermasterwater production records and well facility data, and indicatesflow rates of approximately 250 gpm for each of the wells atthe Mutuals. The 25- to 40-horsepower'motors for these wellscan only allow well discharges in1 the range of 200 to 450 gpmat the estimated system head, which consists of the liftfrom groundwater levels and discharge head of 135 to 145 feet(58 to 62 psi) into the distribution system.



CONTAMINANT LEVELS



CurrentContaminant

Historical Contaminant Levels in pphLevels in ppb (1/82-2/84) (6/19/84)TCE PCE CTC TCE PCE CTC

Rurban HomesWell No. 1 ND to 0.2 1.0 to 7.3 ND ND 4.2 NDWell No. 2 ND to 0.1 1.3 to 54.1 ND ND ND ND


Historical test results are included in Appendix.ND.= not detectable.

fiased on these test results, a PCE level of 100 ppb has beenselected as the design contaminant loading to provide conser-vatism above the measured levels.

AIR STRIPPING ' ..- '


Perry, R. H., and C. H. Chilton. Chemical Engineers Handbook.McGraw-Hill Company. Fifth Edition.





o Air-to-Water Ratio. Based on the sensitivity analy-sis and review of literature discussing similarair stripping towers in Southern California, air-to-water ratios of 20:1 to 50:1 on a volume basiswill achieve the removal rates of tetrachloroethylenenecessary to produce potable water from groundwaterat the Mutuals. The selection of the appropriateair-to-water ratio is based on operational experi-ence and economics. At ratios of 20:1 and below,uneven distribution of air through the packed mate-

\., Y , ", - rial has occurred and created operational problemsin pilot and full-scale facilities. As air-to-waterratios increase, energy requirements and costs forthe tower blowers become greater. An air-to-waterratio of 30:1 'appears to be appropriate.


yoozX

8


110.5

D % REM - 90

0.7(Thousands)

LOADING (GPM)K REM - 96 % REM - 98

»Vl*:U





ACTIVATED CARBON

The carbon system was designed for a 10-minute contact time•at the maximum flow rate. Since the flow rate is not knownexactly at this time, two subalternatives of 500 gpm and1,000 gpm were evaluated.

Recent data show that the expected carbon consumption forthese chemical concentrations is 'between 0.20 Ib per 1,000 gal-lons and 0.40 Ib per 1,000 gallons. The operating cost wasbased on 0.40 Ib per 1,000 gallons.









-cxH

WELLPUMPNO. 1

WELLPUMPNO. 2

I PRODUCED WATERDISINFECTION

OVERFLOW

FAN

OVERFLOW

VOWEP

MO. 2

WASTE

DISINFECTANTPUMP BOOSTER PUMP/3

(VARIABLE SPEED)


TO SYSTEM



TO HYDROPNEUMATICTANKS

.PUMP HOUSE



-txH

FAN

FAN

OVERFLOW


DRAIN -*-

TOWERNO. 2

OVERFLOW

WASTE

1

POWERNO. 1

PACKING

WASTE

DISINFECTANTPUMP


oRESERVOIR


TO SYSTEM





This alternative will have the booster pumps controlled fromthe hydropneumatic tank pressure, just as the existing wellpumps are now. The well pumps will be controlled by thelevel in the reservoir. At a low level the well pumps willturn on. They will then pump until the reservoir is fulland shut themselves off. The only additional instrumentationneeded above what is in existence now is a level gauge withlevel switches.




The carbon system would be placed just downstream from theexisting hydropneumatic tanks (see Figure 6). The waterleaving the hydropneumatic tanks would go through two stagesof carbon adsorption then into the distribution system.During carbon replacement there would be only one stage ofcarbon.

'There would be no control system for this alternative. Sam-ples would be taken once a month, from between the stages,and analyzed to determine when the carbon should be replaced.

The advantages of this s'ystem are extreme simplicity of opera-tion and small space requirements'. Also, in Richwood's case,a separate carbon system could be built at each well, eliminat-ing the need for a connecting pipe. Another advantage isthat water will taste similar to what it tastes like now.An air stripper removes all the carbon dioxide out of thewater leaving a "flat" taste.


II—

TO HYDROPNEUMATIC IITANKS

RELIFT PUMPS

I /60.000 GALLONjy RESERVOIRIf

IPUMP HOUSE



o EXISTINGHYDROPNEUMATICTANK

WELL PUMPNO. 1

TO SYSTEM

ACTIVATED CARBON

WELL PUMPNO. 2



Fig^ * 7


Item Rurban Rich wood

TowersFansPumpsChlorine SystemOverflowPipingEquipment InstallationElectrical and I&CSoundproofed BldgMobilization and Site Prep

Total w/o Reservoir

$80, 000$5, 000

$20, 000$10,000$50,000$15,000$50,000$80,000$£0,000$20,000

$80, 000$5, 000

$20, 000$10,000$50,000$15,000$100,000$80,000$20,000$20,000

$350,000 $400,000

60,000 Ballon Reservoir

Total w/ Reservoir

$150,000 $200,000

$500,000 $600,000


PowerMaintenance

Total Annual Cost

$5, 000 $5, 000$10,000 $10,000

$15,000 $15,000


ItemPeak Flow

500 BPM 1,000 GPM

VesselsPipingChlorine System '.Installation -Mobilization and Sitework

Total Capital Cost

$150, 000 $200, 000$15,000 $20,000$10,000 $10,000$35,000 $55,000$10,000 $15,000

$220,000 $300,000


Activated CarbonMaintenance

Total Operating Cost

$21,000$5,000 $5,000

$26,000 $26,000

MEMOEANDUM to Neil ZiembaPage 8August 3, 1984W69427.00


COSTS


SUMMARY



Advantages


Disadvantages

1. Complex control system2. Less reliability3. May leave water "flat" tasting4. Potential noise problems


Advantages'"••• .V f- •


Disadvantages




Advantages


Disadvantages


sm/se9981a

kjt lil V t

B HILL \C^_cJU j^h^?A^_>_ tMlff^n _f^LLHv^ *<^ SHEET NO. _ /_ ot

PROJECT i

>-$

oo

8!

37

72,

UJdlL(tf^

Xece.\»e.I\»e(P

"FXT

ihMMncjLnpjJr'ai. r i -/-. , • • '

Rlchwood MutualWater Corpany

"*

ISAlW-lSqOS

• , "•*-.

• ———

-•_

^^HH^^^^^^^^^^^^^H^^^^^^^^^^^H^^HB^^^^^HH^^^vvfvHttlH^BvvVv^^B^^BvVVV^HtiH^^^BKi^ll^^^^^^^^^Hft^HHB^^^ffi^^îiu ;_ i , WF3»aj"*J . M*. -:^.. 7-» -s^ . t

.' :' '''

j


B

- -•

* 1=; 3*rVyJi_' 5Jirl *wif "} «W|

'11/01/8211/29/8201/04/8302/01/8303/02/8305/04/83

01A2/8001/23/8010/31/8001/07/81

• 01/12/8103/18/8107A3/81

•07/15/8107/23/8109/23/8109/23/8102/00/8202/18/8203/04/8203/05/8204A4/82*05/00/8206/08/8206/18/8206/23/8206/23/8206/30/8207/00/8207/23/8208/00/82

10.55.41.62.11.60.1

0.180.16-.

0.49ND

.

.--_.-

'-..'-.--.-.

ûo!s0.60.30.30.1..

2.88.76.36.9

12.5111213

17.841

27.023

23.42326

'383929253021

26.1146V

" 1 P

.---_---.-.-.-• •..-.-

• ---

'-------

PPPPPHHHHHPHPHPPPHPHPPHHHPHPHP

Vfell fl South

NO * Not Detected* H = Department of Health ServicesP = Water Purveyor

"-" is used when the corpound was not analyzed far or when it is inclear if it was either not analyzed for or was not detected.

<=•':

Richwood MutualWater Company

i , . . . . . . . . . .....

/"' ^

.

1S/11W-15Q01',

i

f ' • - * ' * , II • t " r \

.'•'' "" '• ' '

* •

.

i • n •• •


I 08/05/82?08/18/8209/00/8209/30/8210/00/8210/27/82

-.11/00/8212/22/8212/29/8201/00/8302/16/8304/00/83

04/13/8305/03/8305/17/8306/01/83

01/12/8001/23/8010/09/8011/14/8001/07/8103/18/8103/26/8107/15/8107/23/8109/23/8109/23/8102/00/8202/18/82

j ' "' - .. c

--

0.48.

0.68.- '

--.._

.• «-

1.61.70.982.2-

1.53.0-....•

r3B.OT39.0

1939.0

2950.0

503346274574745488967862_-21253310343128243336

32.4

I --;"l-------

• -•• •---------•.-

0.15<0.10

_»

<0.10-----—

t HHPHPHPHHPHPPPHHHH

HHHHHPHPHPPPH

W

-•

Well 12 North

"

NO * Not Detected* H « Department of Health Services

P « Water Purveyor

"-" Is used uhen the compound was not analyzed for or vten It Is unclear If It was either not analyzed for or was not detected.

'03/05/8204/14/8205AXV8206/08/8206/18/8206/23/8206/23/8206/30/8207/00/8207/07/8207/23/8203/00/8203/05/8208/18/8209/00/8209/30/8210/00/8210/27/82ll/DO/8211/22/8201/00/8304/00/83

04/07/8304/08/8305/17/83

0.95

^w29.9 '

2030

50.042.033.0

3035.0

4539.031.27

4745.045.0

1945.0

2744.0

4443.0

27,71

6853868192

HPPHHHPHPHHPHHPHPHPHPPPPHHH

VQA

V3A

ND» Not Detected*H - Department of Health Services

P « Water Purveyr"-• is used when the oorpound was not analyzed for or tfen it is tnclear if it was either not analyzed for or was not detected.

(Urban HomesMutual WaterGcnpany

1SA1W-1C01,>

''.:• '

' -

t

•'

\

' . '-•

'•-•

,

ipujpjuiwu^ —

• ~ • • •

p * i ••

... .

^SfiwS^11/14/8001/07/8101/12/8102/19/81OZ/19/8106/17/8107/15/8107/23/ffl08/12/8109/16/8110/1V8111/W8112/08/811Z/18/8101/19/8202/18/8203A1/8203/16/8205/12/8206/08/8206/17/8206/18/8206/18/8206/23/8206/30/8207/D7/8207A4/8207/23/8208/05/8203A7/8209/22/82

BM^^BwHHBH^^H^B^^^B

flby^S^<0.10 160.14

<b.io•»

.

.

.

ND...

<D.l..

0.2..

.

...«•

.

.

.-.-•

9.89.88.27.76.57.58.37.0111511

5.59.26.9

.4.26.74.13.34.47.34.34.64.04.44.76.14.696.36.43.7

•••HMn:r<0.10

<0.10-^

-----...•»

.'

.

.i **

-.-w

.-.••

-..-

•«•

•

' HHHHHHPPHPPPPPHPP .HPPHPHHHHHPHHHP

Well H North

10:12 ajn.10:15 ajn.

NO * Not Detected*H « Department of Health Services

P * Water Purveyr

"-" Is used when the coipound was not analyzed for or vten It Is unclear If It was either not analyzad for or was not detected.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^S^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!

'•'"" 1 ' "' •"-r. 1'wp««M :Wi|WSppBp^^^^^»^^^^^^^^P !S

•

Rurban HomesWitual WaterCompany

-

" • •

•

1S/11H-14002

•

-•.

-.

'-••"'

^

^^^^^^^^^^n

09/30/8210/27/8211/22/8212/22/8212/29/8202/16/8304/07/8305/17/83

01/12/8010/31/8011/14/8001/07/8101/12/8102/19/S106A7/8107A5/8107/23/8108/12/8109/16/8110A4/8111/18/8112/08/8112/18/8101A9/82

.02/18/8206/08/8206/18/8206/23/8206/30/8207/07/8207/23/82

r— -.^ ,„•,* - • * » - ' • • - • - . . - » .1- -•->*" • < . . ._*• •- » — < - *, » j. > - . - * - p>*

i...~ulu _ i.—Vi'-i;.,*., — \iv-.~. —————— *^..-.---

1.4XD.10<0.100.08

<0.10-...NO..-

<0.1•k

.0.1.....•

iRVPVVMPIBPWH

5.910.43'0.340.290.311.81.7

—15201819

24.3111819

7.3111611

11.019

25.418.236.038.032.733.440.035.76

^

--

'_---_

<0.10<0.10-..-_-_..-'_._....-..••

HHHHHHHH


VGAVOA

5050 Cog swell

(

Well 12 South

NO = Not Detected*H = Department of Health Services

P « Water Purveyor

"-" 1s used when the ccqxxjid was not analyzed for or iten it Is unclear If It was either not analyzed for or Mas not detected.

Documents

Memo: Follow-up to focused IRM FS, 12/6/83, w/appendix & · PDF fileSFUMD RECORDS CTR 1851-00747 CH2M mill engineers planners economists scientists! I/ ..1. ACv-i / A? Seattle Off