4101_HighPointRiverdale_CAP_DIN28137_20161121

SEABOARD GROUP II AND CITY OF HIGH POINT, NC
Page - 1 of 9
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM E-10
To: North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
ATTN: Joe Ghieold, Hazardous Waste Section
Jackie Drummond, Solid Waste Section
FROM: Seaboard Group II and City of High Point
SUBJECT: Technical Memorandum No. E-10
Date: November 14, 2016
Seaboard Group II and City of High Point (Parties) have determined that certain modifications
to the remedial treatment system at the Seaboard Chemical Corporation and Riverdale Drive
Landfill (Site) were necessary in order to improve the operating reliability, performance and
solids handling. Those modifications are as follows:
CLARIFIER INSTALLATION
In prior Technical Memoranda, the Parties have addressed the higher than expected amount of
solids separating from the groundwater and leachate during processing that foul the equipment
and require frequent shutdowns for cleaning and repairs. To address this issue the Parties
installed enhanced filtration with the addition of the Filter Building. When the system was
restarted after that modification was installed several variations of system chemistry were
tested to determine whether the solids could be kept in solution until they could be deposited
on a set of large dual media filters. Although this approach showed some improvement, it did
not prove to be adequate to ensure stable long term operation of the system.
As a result, the Parties retained the services of Hazen and Sawyer in the summer of 2015 to
conduct on-site testing and recommend physical and chemical changes to improve system
stability and prevent fouling of pumps, valves, pipes and other components. Hazen and Sawyer
issued their report in July 2015 and recommended that a Clarifier be installed before flow
enters the Filter Building and that additional sludge handling equipment be added to the
system. In addition, they recommended changes to system chemistry. A copy of the Hazen and
Sawyer report was submitted to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) in an earlier report.
The Parties approved the plans for the Clarifier modification, and construction commenced in
early January 2016. Prior to commencing construction, a full set of the plan drawings for the
proposed modifications was provided to DEQ. Construction consisted of installing a Clarifier
immediately behind the Filter Building. The process piping was modified to direct flow from all
groundwater and leachate sources to the Clarifier inlet.
SEABOARD GROUP II AND CITY OF HIGH POINT, NC
Page - 2 of 9
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM E-10
The Clarifier is a conical bottomed cylindrical vessel approximately 18-feet in diameter and 15-
feet high. It has an internal mixing zone where ferric chloride and hydrated lime are added to
the flow and thoroughly mixed before entering the settling zone where the precipitate that
forms is settled. The settled material is moved to the center of the Clarifier by a set of rakes
where it is pumped to the solids handling equipment. The clarified process flow overflows from
the Clarifier into the Aeration Tank (T-600) in the Filter Building. The remaining portions of the
treatment system were not modified. A simplified flow diagram is attached.
SLUDGE HANDLING EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION
Sludge is pumped from the bottom of the Clarifier by a set of progressive cavity pumps which
transfer it to one of the two sludge dewatering boxes mounted on elevated stands behind the
Maintenance Building. The progressive cavity pump in service draws the sludge from the
Clarifier. At this point the sludge is very thin; therefore, a polymer is added at the suction of the
progressive cavity pump which further coagulates the sludge as it travels to the dewatering box.
Once it arrives in the dewatering box, the sludge is retained by filter screens that line the
dewatering box while the water drains to a sump which is pumped to the Clarifier Equalization
Tank. The Equalization Tank receives that flow along with the backwash flow from the dual
media filters in the Filter Building. The combined flows are pumped back to the Clarifier inlet.
Each sludge dewatering box holds approximately 20 cubic yards of dewatered sludge. Once one
dewatering box is full, flow is directed to the other box. The full box is allowed to sit until all the
free water has drained. At that time, the box is tilted up and the low end is opened allowing the
sludge to fall into a concrete basin. The sludge is tested quarterly for TCLP metals, and if it is
below the limits, it used for structural fill on the landfill cap. If not, it disposed of as required by
state regulations.
AOP UNIT ELIMINATION
In the original design of the remedial treatment system it was envisioned that there was a need
for a backup system to be used in the event of a catastrophic loss of the phytoremediation
system. To provide the backup system the Parties requested proposals for an advanced
oxidation system to treat 1,4-dioxane and other organic contaminants to levels sufficient to
allow discharge to the City of High Point East Side POTW. After an onsite pilot test that
appeared to show satisfactory destruction of 1,4-dioxane and other VOC and cVOC compounds,
the Parties purchased a titanium dioxide catalytic advanced oxidation system, referred to as the
PhotoCat, manufactured by Purifics ES, Inc. of London, Ontario, Canada. That unit was
warranted by Purifics to treat 1,4-dioxane and the residual organics to consistently produce an
effluent that would meet the pretreatment permit limits for discharge to the City of High Point
East Side POTW.
Unfortunately, the Parties have determined that the PhotoCat unit is unable to meet the
performance standards required under their contract and as warranted by Purifics. The
PhotoCat and related equipment manufactured by Purifics were defective when delivered and
SEABOARD GROUP II AND CITY OF HIGH POINT, NC
Page - 3 of 9
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM E-10
failed to comply with the National Electric Code and other contractual requirements. After
delivery and set up at the Site, Purifics was unable, after repeated attempts, to get the
treatment system to operate as designed and warranted. Purifics failed to respond to the
Parties’ demands to cure the many defects in the system. Consequently, the Parties hired
qualified contractors to effect the necessary repairs to the system. The Parties spent over
$700,000 to make the necessary repairs, including reprogramming the SCADA control system.
In April of 2015, the Parties filed a demand for arbitration against Purifics under the rules of the
International Chamber of Commerce seeking recovery of the approximately $700,000 spent to
repair and render operable the PhotoCat and related treatment system equipment
manufactured by Purifics. The Parties also sought damages for failure of the PhotoCat to meet
the warranted treatment standards. Alternatively, the Parties requested the Arbitrator to
require Purifics to take back the PhotoCat and refund the purchase price to the Parties along
with the costs of repair. Purifics denied and contested all of the Parties claims. An arbitration
hearing was held in Greensboro NC during the last week of September 2016. A ruling by the
Arbitrator on the Parties’ breach of contract and warranty claims is expected during the first
quarter of 2017. Because the PhotoCat will not meet the pre-treatment standards for discharge
to the POTW, it cannot be used as a backup system at the Site. Therefore, despite the Parties’
best efforts and the expenditure of millions of dollars, the Photocat unit is unable to be used as
part of the treatment process at the Site.
After making the repairs necessary to render the system operable, the Parties conducted short-
term test runs of the PhotoCat in the fall of 2014. These tests indicated that the PhotoCat unit
was unable to achieve the necessary treatment limits for 1,4-dioxane of 3 ug/L to be suitable
for discharge to the POTW. Further tests of the PhotoCat unit were delayed until the Clarifier
modifications were installed. As soon as the Clarifier modifications were complete, the Parties
retained the services of Arcadis to provide a qualified expert to design an appropriate testing
protocol and then to operate and test the PhotoCat to determine if it could meet the treatment
limits. Arcadis provided an engineer who had extensive experience operating advanced
oxidation systems, including the Purifics PhotoCat. The testing was conducted during August
2016. The tests indicated that given the high concentrations of 1,4-dioxane (approximately
3,000 ug/L) entering the PhotoCat, and other characteristics of the extracted groundwater and
leachate entering the unit, including high concentrations of radical scavengers (bromide levels
of 6-10 mg/L), the PhotoCat unit, as presently configured, could not achieve the required
treatment levels. Based on the observed conditions and the analytical data, Arcadis estimated
that to install a unit that could meet the discharge limits would require approximately 5-times
the existing UV-lamp power, or roughly 1,000 KW. Not only would such a unit be impossible to
operate due to the heat it would generate, but at 50 GPM, the fluid would boil inside the unit,
removing any cooling for the lamps. This would result in damage that would disable the unit.
Arcadis also identified a number of significant additional long term operating issues with the
PhotoCat that are detailed in the report. A copy of the Arcadis report is attached.
SEABOARD GROUP II AND CITY OF HIGH POINT, NC
Page - 4 of 9
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM E-10
Because the effluent from the PhotoCat cannot be consistently treated to the required levels
established in the City’s Pretreatment Permit, it cannot be operated, and the Parties are not
able to discharge any treated effluent to the City’s POTW. The Parties have explored alternative
technologies that might improve or replace the PhotoCat. However, the available alternative
technologies are very limited due to the high levels of 1,4-dioxane in the groundwater and
leachate and the presence of high levels of radical scavengers at this Site. At this time, the
Parties have not been able to identify a suitable enhancement or replacement for the PhotoCat.
The Parties recognize that having a backup unit would address concerns that may exist about
the catastrophic loss of the tree stand. However, the tree stands have existed on the landfill cap
for 9 years and have yet to experience significant tree loss. They are under the day-to-day
supervision of a licensed forester, and the phytoremediation system is managed by an expert
who conducts soil and tree tissue samplings to ensure the health of the entire stand. The tree
species planted are native North Carolina species including Loblolly, Virginia and Southern Pine
and Eastern Red Cedar, which were selected for their resistance to disease, long life
expectancy, and tolerance of the landfill cap soil conditions. As a result of the experience
gained over the past 9 years with the phytoremediation system, and the lack of suitable and
available alternative technologies, the Parties request that an alternate backup system to the
PhotoCat not be required at this time. For the reasons discussed below, the Parties believe the
most prudent course of action is to continuously operate the phytoremediation system over
the next five years as the sole effluent treatment system.
The Parties submit that the following significant facts support using continuous operation of the
phytoremediation system as the sole treatment method:
1. From conception, this remedial system has been designed as a containment remedy due
to the presence of DNAPL in fractured bedrock. Accordingly, the primary objective has
been to establish and maintain a capture zone that prevents the plume from reaching
the Reservoir. It was determined that the best method to contain the plume is to
continuously pump PW-DR-1 at a rate necessary to maintain a capture zone. This rate
was predicted during an August 2002 aquifer test, and observations of groundwater
drawdown during recent system operation confirm the design data developed during
the 2002 aquifer testing. The drawdown pattern and extent of the capture zone
observed from the permanently installed transducers support the findings of the aquifer
testing and indicate hydraulic control of the contaminant plume is achieved using an
extraction rate of 10 - 20 gpm at the PW-DR1 extraction well location. Given the
drawdown indicated in deep monitoring wells on the north side of the Reservoir (PW-
15D/PW-16D), the designed extraction system exceeds the anticipated performance,
and the capture zone is expected to be effective in preventing the plume from reaching
the Reservoir.
2. The City POTW has no treatment system that will remove, degrade or destroy 1,4-
dioxane, which is present in the influent to the remedial treatment system at levels of 2
SEABOARD GROUP II AND CITY OF HIGH POINT, NC
Page - 5 of 9
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM E-10
to 3 mg/L. This is roughly 1,000 times the North Carolina 2L groundwater standard of 3
ug/L and well above what can be discharged to the City’s POTW. The best results during
the PhotoCat testing reduced the influent levels of 1,4-dioxane by approximately 75%,
and would not meet the treatment level necessary to discharge to the POTW.
3. There are two lobes of the landfill being used by the phytoremediation system. Tree
stands are planted on the eastern and western lobes consisting of approximately
13,000-trees planted on 10-foot centers covering roughly 30-acres. The irrigation system
is divided into fifteen drip-irrigation zones of approximately 2 acres each. Process
effluent water is irrigated on one zone at a time year-round. To accomplish this, long
subsurface drip lines are buried in the shallow landfill soil between the tree rows. Drip-
emitters are spaced 1.2 to 1.5 ft. apart along each drip line and emit 0.4 to 0.6 gallons
per hour each. There are approximately 3,500 drip-emitters per zone giving an irrigation
rate per zone of 40 to 58 gpm. The average is 50 gpm, which represents a rate of 0.1
inch per day of irrigation flow applied stand-wide.
4. The irrigation water leaving the physical treatment system contains very low amounts of
chlorinated ethenes and chlorinated ethanes, and all of the 1,4-dioxane. Recent testing
has shown that the groundwater and leachate entering the system contains
approximately 20,000 ug/L of total organics (VOC and cVOC). Of that, approximately
3,000 ug/L is 1,4-dioxane and 17,000 ug/L is other organics. That same testing, as well as
earlier testing, showed that the total of the other organics in the physical treatment
system effluent is less than 100 ug/L and the 1,4-dioxane remains unchanged. As a
result, the destruction or removal efficiency of the physical treatment system for
compounds other than 1,4-dioxane is greater that 99%, but it has no effect on the 1,4-
dioxane. Nevertheless, including the 1,4-dioxane, the overall destruction or removal
efficiency is roughly 85%
5. The compound 1,4-dioxane is miscible in water, not readily volatilized, highly mobile in
soil and resistant to biodegradation. Fortunately, 1,4-dioxane is taken up by many tree
species as readily is water. Once it is taken up by a tree, it trans-locates from the roots
to the leaves and exits the tree through the stomata where it rapidly photo-degrades
(half-life = 6.7 to 9.6 hours). There is minimal accumulation in the tree, resulting in no
metabolism or toxicity.
6. The Parties have determined through pilot testing that there will be some periods of
time during the winter months when the amount of irrigation water applied to the
landfill cap will exceed the amount taken up by the trees. This excess irrigation is
actually beneficial because it is necessary to flush any accumulated phytotoxic salts from
the soil. The excess irrigation water will wet the upper layer of waste in the landfill, will
be recaptured by the leachate collection system and shallow groundwater recovery
wells, and then will be returned to the remedial treatment system for further
treatment.

SEABOARD GROUP II AND CITY OF HIGH POINT, NC
Page - 6 of 9
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM E-10

The above chart is a plot of the transpiration rate for loblolly pines which, as can be
seen, roughly follows the plot of the reference evapotranspiration rate. Thus the
removal of 1,4-dioxane, which is dependent on evapotranspiration, is less in the cold
months.
To test the effectiveness of the phytoremediation process, during the summer of 2015
the Parties operated a pilot plot located on the west lobe of the landfill. The pilot plot
was irrigated from May 2015 to September 2015. The results are as follows:
1,4-DIOXANE
Added via irrigation water: 57.6 g
Recovered: 0.14 g (0.24%) mostly in drainage water
Result: Greater than 99% removal of 1,4-dioxane.
BROMIDE TRACER
Added via irrigation water: 238.4 g
Recovered: 249.2 g (104%); soils (80%), drainage water (20%)

Result: Other organics added via irrigation water were 100% removed.
The 1,4-dioxane removal was greater than 99% during the period when transpiration is
high enough to take up the amount of irrigation water applied.
SEABOARD GROUP II AND CITY OF HIGH POINT, NC
Page - 7 of 9
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM E-10

As indicated in the chart above, beginning in the late fall, stand-wide percolation begins
to exceed transpiration. This continues through early spring, when transpiration once
again exceeds percolation. During the period when percolation exceeds transpiration
using the worst case pumping rate (50 gpm), the maximum amount of 1,4-dioxane that
could be added to the soils and possibly leach into the upper landfill waste layer is as
follows:
January 35.0 lbs.
February 20.7 lbs.
November 17.5 lbs.
December 27.0 lbs.
Total 100.2 lbs. or 24% of total (418 lbs.) applied annually.
7. An important point to consider is that regardless of the amount of 1,4-dioxane that the
remedial system removes at any given time, the overall destruction and removal
efficiency of the entire system is greater than 99% for all organic compounds during 8
months of the year and drops to 84.5% for 4 months of the year. By operating during
the 4-month period when there is excess irrigation, not only do we maintain the capture
zone, but we also remove or destroy 84.5% of the contamination captured and flush
excess accumulated salts from the tree stand soils.
8. If the system were operated continuously at 50 gpm, it could process 26,280,000 gallons
of water per year. If that influent contained 20 mg/L of total organic contamination, 3
mg/L would be 1,4-dioxane and 17 mg/L would be other VOC and cVOC compounds.
During that 4-month period, the system would process 8,640,000 gallons, which would
53.8
69.2
123.1
161.5
196.2 207.7 207.7
192.3
142.3
107.7
76.9
57.653.8 50 59.6 61.5 55.8 61.5 71.2 59.6 71.1
50 51.9 48.1
0
19.2
63.5
100
140.4 146.2 136.5 132.7
71.2 57.7
25
9.5
50
30.8
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25
40.5
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
GM
P
MONTH
Potential Stand Water Uptake (Kc = 2)Precipitation Stand-Wide
Potential Stand Irrigation Capacity Percolation Stand-wide
SEABOARD GROUP II AND CITY OF HIGH POINT, NC
Page - 8 of 9
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM E-10
contain approximately 1,441.2 pounds of contamination. Of that, 100.2 pounds would
be 1,4-dioxane; however, the other 1,341 lbs. of contaminants would be removed or
destroyed by the physical treatment system regardless of transpiration rate.
9. The effect on the landfill hydraulics is monitored by permanently installed transducers.
These transducers are placed on the landfill in monitoring wells that monitor key
locations on the east and west lobes, as well as two wells located on the other side of
the Reservoir. These allow monitoring of the landfill hydrology. In addition, the landfill is
inspected weekly to detect leachate seeps or ponding of irrigation water.
10. In order to ensure that the effluent from the remedial treatment system cannot
accidentally be discharged to the POTW, the Parties have disabled the valve actuator in
the control system for the POTW discharge. The valve and line will remain in place in the
event it becomes necessary to install an alternate backup system at some time in the
future.
Because there is no known technology available at this time that will consistently reduce the
1,4-dioxane to a level suitable for discharge to the POTW, the Parties believe that continuously
operating the phytoremediation system while keeping the effluent inside the extraction wells’
capture zone is the best treatment alternative for the Site. The Parties request that they be
allowed to operate the phytoremediation system for a period of five years, during which time
the Parties will irrigate the tree stand with process effluent on a continuous basis. This will
allow full evaluation of the phytoremediation system, including identification of and the time to
mitigate any problems observed. Extensive data will be collected that will demonstrate the
operating reliability and treatment levels of the physical system, treatment levels for the
phytoremediation system and other important information. This data can be used to fully
evaluate the need for a backup system at the time of the remedial action 5-year review, or at
such earlier time DEQ determines necessary.
If there are any questions, or if we may be of any assistance this matter, please feel free to
contact Jim LaRue at [phone] or Gary Babb at [phone].
Respectfully,
Seaboard Group II and City of High Point

James C. LaRue, Oversight Consultant
Seaboard Group II

Gary D. Babb, P.G., Oversight Consultant
City of High Point
Attachments: Flow Diagram
Arcadis Report

Page - 9 of 9

Seaboard Group II and City Of High Point
AOP SYSTEM TESTING REPORT
Purifics Photo-Cat System
Jamestown, NC
19 August 2016
AOP SYSTEM TESTING REPORT
arcadis.com
AOP SYSTEM TESTING
REPORT
Purifics Photo-Cat System
Jamestown, NC
Prepared for:
John Burns
Williams Mullen
301 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1700
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Prepared by:
Arcadis U.S., Inc.
3109 W. Dr. M. L. King Jr Boulevard
Suite 350
Tampa
Florida 33637
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
Our Ref.:
TF001589.0001
Date:
August 19 2016
This document is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity for which it was
prepared and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. Any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this
document is strictly prohibited.
John F. Perella, P.E.
Principal Engineer
(Licensed in Florida)
AOP SYSTEM TESTING REPORT
arcadis.com
i

CONTENTS
Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ iii
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 AOP Operational Experience .......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Document Review ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Summary of Initial Pilot Testing ...................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Summary of 2014 Full Scale System Testing ................................................................................. 2
2 Existing Pretreatment System ................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Influent Water Quality ..................................................................................................................... 4
3 AOP System Testing ............................................................................................................................... 5
3.1 AOP System Tests Performed ........................................................................................................ 6
3.1.1 AOP System Testing Operational Parameters .................................................................... 7
3.2 AOP System Testing Results ......................................................................................................... 8
3.3 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 11

TABLES
Table 1. Initial Pilot Testing Results Summary
Table 2. 2014 Full Scale System Testing Results Summary
Table 3. 2014 Full Scale System Reaction Rate Constants
Table 4. Influent Water Quality Data
Table 5. Photo-Cat Testing Plan
Table 6. Advanced Oxidation Process (AOP) Testing Results
Table 7. Advanced Oxidation Process (AOP) Reaction Rate Constants
FIGURES
Figure 1. Process Flow Diagram
Figure 2. Test 0 and Test 1 AOP Performance Decay Curves
Figure 3. Test 2 and Test 3 AOP Performance Decay Curves
Figure 4. Test 4 and Test 6 AOP Performance Decay Curves
Figure 5. Test 5 AOP Performance Decay Curves
AOP SYSTEM TESTING REPORT
arcadis.com
ii

Figure 6. Test 7 and Test 8 AOP Performance Decay Curves
APPENDICES
A Curriculum Vitae – John Perella
B Field Data
C Laboratory Analytical Reports

AOP SYSTEM TESTING REPORT
arcadis.com
iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADX Adsorption Xcelerant
AOP Advance Oxidation Process
Arcadis Arcadis U.S., Inc.
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
CRU Catalyst Recovery Unit
CVOCs Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compounds
DPCV Discharge Pressure Control Valve
FG Food Grade
gpm Gallons per Minute
H2O2 Hydrogen Peroxide
K First Order Rate Constant
kW Kilowatts
kW-hr/m3 Kilowatt Hours per Cubic Meter
Lpm/kW Liters per Minute per Kilowatts
LS-2 Lift Station 2
µg/L Microgram per Liter
µm Micron
mg/L Milligram per Liter
ml/min Milliliter per Minute
nano Nanoparticle
ND Non Detect
% Percent
psi Pounds per Square Inch
R2 Coefficient of Determination
SFCV Slurry Feed Control Valve
SLCV Slurry Loop Control Valve
SU Standard Unit
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TiO2 Titanium Dioxide
AOP SYSTEM TESTING REPORT
arcadis.com
iv

UV Ultraviolet
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
AOP SYSTEM TESTING REPORT
arcadis.com 1
1 INTRODUCTION
Arcadis U.S., Inc. (Arcadis) was retained by Williams Mullen to test and evaluate the performance of the
existing Advance Oxidation Process (AOP) unit located at the Seaboard Group II facility in Jamestown,
NC to determine system capabilities for reducing 1,4-dioxane concentrations in pretreated process water.
Testing was performed between August 1 and 3, 2016. An Arcadis Remediation Engineer was present for
Tests 0 through 6. Due to travel schedule constraints, the Arcadis Remediation Engineer assisted in
initiating Test 7 and Test 8, but was not present for collection of effluent samples or during additional
sampling performed on August 16, 2016.
This Expert Report is prepared for submission in the arbitration matter Seaboard Group II and the City of
High Point, North Carolina v. Purifics, ES, Inc. (ICC Case No. 20995/RD). Other than this engagement,
Arcadis and the undersigned are independent of any of the parties to this dispute as well as the Arbitrator,
Edna Sussman. The statements herein are based upon the knowledge and experience of the undersigned
and, as stated below, upon review of the testing conducted in August 2016 and other documentary
reports. This statement represents the genuine belief and opinion of the undersigned.
1.1 AOP Operational Experience
The Arcadis Remediation Engineer (John Perella) present during testing has 15 years of experience with
the design and operation of AOP systems at environmental remediation sites, including the Calgon
RayOx, Applied Process Technologies HiPOx and Purifics Photo-Cat. Direct experience with the Purifics
Photo-Cat system includes one full scale and two pilot scale systems. John Perella’s Curriculum Vitae is
provided in Appendix A.
1.2 Document Review
Historical documents reviewed prior to testing and referenced for this report include:
•Seaboard Site Groundwater Remediation On-Site Verification Test Program, January 21, 2009
(Purifics, 2009a)
•Draft Photo-Cat Pilot Test & Sample Plan, March 16, 2009 (Purifics, 2009b)
•Preliminary On-Site Test Report Photo-Cat Treatment of Leachate and Groundwater at the Seaboard
Site, May 4, 2009 (Purifics, 2009c)
•On-Site Test Report Photo-Cat Treatment of Leachate and Groundwater at the Seaboard Site, June
1, 2009 (Purifics 2009d)
•Response to Proposal Questions Seaboard Site, September 21, 2009 (Purifics, 2009e)
•Seaboard Site Mobile Groundwater Treatment System (Proposal), April 28, 2010 (Purifics, 2010)
•Operation & Maintenance Support Information Manual, December 5, 2011 (Purifics, 2011)
•Jamestown Landfill Leachate Treatment System Treatment Process Study, September 28, 2015
(Hazen, 2015)
AOP SYSTEM TESTING REPORT
arcadis.com 2
•Draft Construction Completion Report, May 14, 2015 (Seaboard Group, 2015).
1.3 Summary of Initial Pilot Testing
On-Site testing or pilot testing was originally proposed by Purifics in January 2009 (Purifics, 2009a). A
pilot scale system to include pretreatment systems (air stripping and iron and manganese removal) and
primary AOP unit were proposed. Based on information in the proposal, the pilot scale system had a
maximum starting load of 12 kilowatts (kW) and was capable of operating within a range of approximately
1 to 13 gallons per minute (gpm).
Pilot testing was performed on-Site between March 18 and May 10, 2009. During this period the pilot
scale system was operated for nine days and 18 AOP treated effluent samples were collected. Pilot
testing resulted in concentrations of 1,4-dioxane in AOP treated effluent between <2.0 and 1,650
micrograms per Liter (µg/L). It should be noted, of the 18 effluent samples collected, three showed no
detection for 1,4-dioxane (<5.0 µg/L on April 28, 2009 [SEA-PUR-6-EFF] and <2.0 µg/L on May 9 and 10,
2009 [SEA-PUR-8-EFF and SEA-PUR-9-EFF]). These three results are referred to as “optimal test
condition” in the On-Site Test Report (Purifics, 2009d). A summary of initial pilot test results is provided in
Table 1.
Based on these results, Purifics recommended a Photo-Cat AOP unit with approximately 145 kW for
treatment of Site process water with an operational flow rate of 50 gpm (Purifics, 2009d). Assuming a 1,4-
dioxane design influent concentration of 3,000 µg/L and a design effluent concentration of <3.0 µg/L, the
resulting AOP unit needs to reduce the concentration by 99.97 percent (%). A mathematical equation is
used to provide a predictive tool to evaluate the performance of the AOP unit, the equation is referred to as
the first order reaction equation. Within this equation is a term referred to as the first order reaction rate
constant. This value provides a number that can be used to compare the performance of AOP treatment
systems; the higher the number, the better the treatment. For example, a first order rate constant of 10
provides twice as much treatment as a value of 5. Additional discussion of the first order rate equation is
provided in Section 3.
The first order rate constant was calculated by Arcadis to treat 1,4-dioxane from the expected influent
concentrations of 3,000 µg/L to the design effluent concentration of <3.0 µg/L; the rate constant was
calculated to be approximately 9 liters per minute per kilowatt (Lpm/kW). It should be noted, in the
Purifics Proposal (Purifics, 2010), the AOP unit power was increased from 145 kW to 245 kW and the
resulting 1,4-dioxane rate constant for the final proposed AOP unit was calculated by Arcadis to be
approximately 5.3 Lpm/kW. There is no explanation for the increased power requirement within the
Purifics Proposal 8P1205v5.
Verification of rate constants observed during the Purifics pilot tests was not possible since key data used
in the rate constant calculation, such as flow rate, power and chemical dose were not provided in the On-
Site Reports, Proposal or Operations and Maintenance Manual documents provided by Purifics.
1.4 Summary of 2014 Full Scale System Testing
In 2014 Seaboard Group II representatives tested the full-scale water treatment system, including the
PhotoCat unit, to verify its performance. All tests completed were performed with the system operating
under full power (240kW) and at a consistent flow rate of 35 gpm. Variables adjusted during testing were
AOP SYSTEM TESTING REPORT
arcadis.com 3
pH, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) dose, and whether titanium dioxide (TiO2) catalyst was used. Catalyst used
during the 2014 event was a food grade (FG) TiO2. All tests performed during the 2014 event were
completed by Jamestown Engineering.
Full scale system testing occurred on September 29, October 2 and October 9, 2014. During these tests,
3 AOP system influent samples (one each day of testing) and 16 effluent samples were collected. These
samples were sent to ENCO Laboratories for analysis. Full scale testing resulted in concentrations of 1,4-
dioxane in AOP treated effluent between <2.0 and 1,420 µg/L. It should be noted, of the 16 effluent
samples collected, one showed no detection for 1,4-dioxane (<2.0 µg/L on October 9, 2014 [AOP 16-4])
and a second resulted in relatively low concentration for 1,4-dioxane (15.8 µg/L on October 9, 2014 [AOP
16-3]). These two results are best case results for testing performed in 2014. A summary of 2014 full
scale test results is provided in Table 2 and a summary of resulting full scale system testing rate
constants is provided in Table 3.
The two best case testing results above, both utilized a H2O2 concentration of approximately 54 milligrams
per Liter (mg/L); however, influent pH was varied between tests (4 standard units (SU) for AOP 16-4 and 3
SU for AOP 16-3). Of note for these best case tests, is that no TiO2 catalyst was utilized for either test,
i.e. the only production of hydroxyl radicals was by the disassociation of H2O2, the same as traditional
ultraviolet (UV)/H2O2 AOP systems. The resulting 1,4-dioxane rate constants were calculated by Arcadis
to be approximately 4.0 Lpm/kW and 2.9 Lpm/kW for AOP 16-4 and AOP 16-3, respectively. Both of
these rate constants are less than the final design rate constant of 5.3 Lpm/kW, as discussed in Section
1.3.
Other tests performed with TiO2 catalyst in use (denoted with “TiO2” in the sample name, e.g. AOP 16-4
TiO2), resulted in calculated 1,4-dioxane rate constants of approximately 1.1 Lpm/kW, similar to results of
Test 7 and Test 8 performed during the August 2016 event, which are discussed in Section 3.2 below.
Influent source water and concentrations for chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs) and 1,4-
dioxane were similar based on analytical results for both 2014 and 2016 testing, hence based on the
similarity of these results, incoming water quality for testing completed in 2014 and 2016 appear to be
similar and consistent.
2 EXISTING PRETREATMENT SYSTEM
The purpose of the pretreatment systems installed at the Seaboard Site are to stabilize hardness (calcium
and magnesium), remove iron and manganese, remove suspended solids, and remove volatile organic
compounds. A clarifier and sludge handling equipment were recently added to the pretreatment process
in 2016. Their design is based on field testing completed by Hazen and Sawyer in September 2015. The
purpose of the clarifier is to remove solids and stabilize calcium (Hazen, 2015). Prior to its installation,
calcium and solids precipitation resulted in short filter runs and operational issues due to scaling in piping
and pumps. Based on discussions with Site operations staff, following the installation of the clarifier,
solids precipitation and scaling has been minimized or eliminated.
The current pretreatment processes include the following: Extracted groundwater and leachate from the
Site are combined in a pipe manifold located in Lift Station 2 (LS-2). Pre-slaked lime and ferric chloride
are then injected into the combined process water stream prior to the clarifier, to increase pH, promote the
development of an iron and manganese floc and stabilize calcium. Following the clarifier, process water
AOP SYSTEM TESTING REPORT
arcadis.com 4
gravity drains into an aeration tank followed by an equalization tank and is then pumped through media
filters. These processes further oxidize, precipitate and mechanically filter remaining iron and manganese.
Following the media filters, process water is pumped to a low profile air stripper, in which the majority of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are removed. Following the air stripper, process water is pumped to a
baffled settling tank and then pumped through 25 micron (µm) and 5 µm nominal bag filters that are in
series for additional solids removal.
When the AOP is not in operation, process water is discharged to the phytoremediation irrigation system
following the bag filters. However, if the PhotoCat AOP is utilized, a final filtration step through a 1 µm
absolute cartridge filter is performed prior to the PhotoCat AOP unit. Additionally, with the PhotoCat AOP
in operation, pH adjustment and chemical oxidant injection is performed prior to the 1 µm absolute
cartridge filter. A general process flow diagram of all treatment systems is provided in Figure 1.
2.1 Influent Water Quality
Influent water quality samples were collected from the combined process water, prior to any treatment
processes (Test 0 INF 080116) and from the AOP system influent following pH adjustment but prior to
final 1 µm filtration (Test 0 PC INF 080116). Chemical oxidant injection, prior to the AOP, was turned off
during the collection of this sample. The groundwater recovery and pretreatment systems were operated
for approximately 24 hours prior to samples being collected. A summary of influent water quality is
provided in Table 4. Analytical laboratory reports are provided in Appendix C.
The source of influent water was primarily from groundwater extraction well PW-DR1 and a lesser amount
was leachate. To best match groundwater and leachate design flowrates as described by Purifics
(Purifics 2009a and Purifics 2010) during testing, approximately 80 % of the water was groundwater and
20% leachate.
The compounds of concern, notably chlorinated VOCs and 1,4-dioxane, were observed in the influent
water at the combined process water influent and are in general relatively high in concentration compared
to most groundwater remediation systems for chlorinated VOCs and 1,4-dioxane. Approximate
concentrations included total VOCs of 20,000 µg/L and 1,4-dioxane of 3,000 µg/L. From a remediation
treatment perspective, although the dissolved organic concentrations are relatively high, they are certainly
within range for treatment using multiple technologies.
There were some inorganic water quality conditions that are noteworthy that can affect both treatment
performance and long-term operations and maintenance of treatment equipment. Of special note, the
water is considered to have very high hardness (660 mg/L). Hardness is generally based on the
concentrations of calcium and magnesium in the water and water is generally considered to be very hard
above 180 mg/L. Hard groundwater can cause fouling of treatment equipment by causing excessive scale
build-up on the equipment.
Iron and manganese were present with iron concentrations of 7.25 mg/L and manganese of 5.69 mg/L.
Iron is a very common compound in shallow impacted aquifers and iron can cause fouling of treatment
equipment. Usually iron concentrations exceeding 2 mg/L require pre-treatment and removal to prevent
equipment fouling. Manganese can also foul equipment, but it does not precipitate as easily as iron and
may or may not act to foul treatment equipment.
AOP SYSTEM TESTING REPORT
arcadis.com 5
Other constituents of interest that can affect treatment using AOP technologies include alkalinity, bromide,
chloride, and chemical oxygen demand. All of these parameters can act as hydroxyl radical scavengers
which make AOP treatment of the 1,4-dioxane and chlorinated VOCs more challenging. Elevated
concentrations of alkalinity, bromide, chloride and chemical oxygen demand (COD), may present
challenges for treatment through an AOP. From review of sample results, each of these conditions is
present in the groundwater and leachate at the Site.
The pre-treatment process improved the ability of the AOP system to treat the 1,4-dioxane; however,
there are hydroxyl radical scavengers present (bromide, chloride) that may affect the treatment
performance of AOP technologies to remove 1,4-dioxane. An additional discussion of bromide is
presented in Section 3.2.
3 AOP SYSTEM TESTING
Contaminant destruction in AOP systems can be modeled using first order reaction principles and can be
confirmed with field tests operated under various flow rate and power conditions while other operational
parameters are kept constant, such as pH and chemical oxidant dose. As described in Section 1.3, the
first order reaction equation is a method to provide a simple way of comparing the performance of the
AOP treatment system. The first order rate constant (k) is the number that is used to make performance
comparisons; the higher the k value, the better the performance. For example, a k value of 10 provides
twice the treatment as a k value of 5. Evaluating and understanding the k value provides a way to
compare different tests and is the primary way to compare the treatment performance of tests described in
this testing program. The following first order equations apply for AOP systems:
C = Co • e-k•x (Eqn. 1)
or:
k = ln(Co/C) • 1/x (Eqn. 2)
where:
Co = Initial Contaminant Concentration
C = Final Contaminant Concentration k
= first order rate constant
x = Dose per Volume Treated
x = P/Q (Eqn. 3)
P = ln(Co/C) • Q/k (Eqn. 4)
where:
P = Power (kW)
Q = Flow Rate
The goal of testing is to determine the first order rate constant, typically calculated in units of Lpm/kW.
The first order rate constant can be calculated or converted to alternative units (e.g. kilowatt hours per
cubic meter [kW-hr/m3]), however for the purposes of this report the units Lpm/kW will be utilized..
AOP SYSTEM TESTING REPORT
arcadis.com 6
The first order rate constant is specific for each contaminant, provides a general gauge of AOP
performance and can be used for the design of full scale systems. The first order rate constant provides
the ability for the designer to determine the power requirement (kW) for the full scale AOP system (see
equation 4 above).
In the units Lpm/kW utilized here, higher rate constant values indicate better potential performance (ability
to reduce contaminant concentrations) and lower power requirement for the AOP system. Based on
experience, typically a first order rate constant for 1,4-dioxane greater than 10 Lpm/kW is desired when
selecting an UV based AOP system, due to the first order kinetics of AOP systems. Specifically, because
of first order kinetics, an AOP system power requirement will double if the rate constant is halved, e.g. an
AOP designed with a rate constant of 10 Lpm/kW and requiring 100 kW, would require 200 kW if the rate
constant was reduced to 5 Lpm/kW and 1,000 kW if the rate constant was reduced to 1 Lpm/kW.
In cases where water quality is consider challenging, lower rate constants (i.e. higher power requirements)
may be acceptable, however the designer must consider the operational parameters (flow rate, initial
contaminant concentrations and desired final contaminant concentrations) of the full scale system. For
example, if the flow rate and/or initial concentration of contaminant are relatively low and/or the desired
final contaminant concentration is relatively high, a low rate constant may be acceptable, since the relative
power requirement may be considered reasonable. However, if flow rate and/or initial contaminant
concentration are relatively high and/or the desired final contaminant concentration is low, the designer
should evaluate methods to increase the rate constant (i.e. pretreatment prior to the AOP) or alternative
methods for treatment of contaminant(s).
For the purpose of verifying first order reaction kinetics, a consistent testing strategy was employed for all
tests completed during August 2016. During each Test performed, chemical oxidant concentration,
catalyst utilized and pH were held constant, while flow and power combinations were varied. The
variation of flow and power during testing are identified as “Runs.” Each Test utilized three (3) Runs,
which were maintained at approximately 40 gpm at 240 kW, 40 gpm at 120 kW and 30 gpm at 120 kW,
i.e. power to flow ratios of 1.5, 0.75 and 1.0 Lpm/kW, respectively. Analysis of AOP system effluent
concentrations collected from the three (3) Runs, allows for the verification and modeling of first order
kinetics for the respective Test.
To best match groundwater and leachate design flowrates as described by Purifics (Purifics, 2009a and
Purifics, 2010), testing of the AOP system was performed utilizing an approximate blend of 80%
groundwater and 20% leachate throughout all testing. Water was pre-treated as described in Section 2 of
this report.
Variation of AOP system power was achieved by operating the system with all lamps in operation for 240
kW Runs and by shutting down all lamps on one half of the reactor for 120 kW Runs.
3.1 AOP System Tests Performed
AOP system testing was performed on-Site between August 1 and 3, 2016. A total of nine distinct Tests
(Test 0 through Test 8), were completed, with each Test including three (3) Runs (as described in the
previous section). At the start of each Test, a pre-treated process water sample was collected from the
AOP system influent. For each Run, the Photo-Cat unit was operated for a minimum of 30 minutes at
consistent operating parameters, after which an effluent sample was collected. A summary of all testing
AOP SYSTEM TESTING REPORT
arcadis.com 7
completed and key operating parameters is provided in Table 5. Field data collected from each Test
during the August event is provided in Appendix B.
A brief description of all tests completed is provided below:
Test 0 – UV only, no catalyst, no chemical oxidant. System performance by photolysis only.
Test 1 – UV and Food Grade (FG) Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) catalyst. System performance with non-
spec catalyst.
Test 2 – UV, FG TiO2, 100 mg/L Adsorption Xcelerant (ADX). System performance with non-spec
catalyst and ADX chemical oxidant.
Test 3 – UV, FG TiO2, 60 mg/L ADX. Same as Test 2, with reduced concentration of ADX.
Test 4 – UV, no catalyst, 100 mg/L ADX. System performance with no catalyst and ADX chemical
oxidant.
Test 5 – UV, no catalyst, 150 mg/L hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). System performance with no catalyst
and H2O2 chemical oxidant.
Test 6 – UV, no catalyst, 200 mg/L H2O2. Same as Test 5, with increased concentration of H2O2.
Test 7 – UV, nanoparticle (nano) TiO2, 150 mg/L H2O2. System performance with spec catalyst and
H2O2 chemical oxidant.
Test 8 – UV, nano TiO2, 100 mg/L ADX. System performance with spec catalyst and ADX chemical
oxidant.
3.1.1 AOP System Testing Operational Parameters
A discussion of key operational parameters utilized for AOP system testing is provided below:
pH
To reduce the number of variables tested, all tests were performed with the AOP system influent pH
maintained at approximately 4.2 SU (on a scale of 1 (highly acidic) to 14 (highly alkaline)). The reduced
pH was selected for the purpose of eliminating bicarbonate alkalinity and maintaining consistent AOP unit
operation.
Reduction of pH was achieved using phosphoric acid injected into the process water stream prior to the
AOP system influent.
Chemical Oxidant
AOP units such as the PhotoCat at the Site use a chemical oxidant to improve performance in the
elimination of 1,4 dioxane. The tests performed in August 2016 on the Site were conducted with either
H2O2 or ADX, a proprietary material provided by Purifics.
Chemical oxidant concentrations were determined based on field COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand)
samples collected on August 1, 2016. COD samples were collected from the AOP system influent sample
port and results were 78 and 82 mg/L. For the purpose of the testing a general rule for traditional
UV/H2O2 AOP systems was applied where the COD concentration is doubled to determine the
AOP SYSTEM TESTING REPORT
arcadis.com 8
approximate H2O2 dose required. Therefore, based on the COD results, H2O2 dose requirements were
estimated to be between 150 and 200 mg/L.
ADX concentrations were selected based on the recommended mixed ADX solution concentration of 12%
(Purifics, 2011) and the pumping capacity of the metering pump (maximum flow rate = 7.5 Lpm). Based
on these criteria, concentrations of 60 and 100 mg/L were selected.
Concentrations of chemical oxidant (ADX or H2O2) are provided as pure product concentration in process
water. Approximately 27.5 lbs of ADX powder (obtained from Purifics) was mixed with 24 gallons water to
produce a 12% by weight concentration. A 12% ADX solution concentration was selected to match the
same concentration identified in the Operations and Maintenance Manual (Purifics, 2011). Based on that
concentration and the calculated specific gravity of the solution, the chemical metering flow rate required
was calculated for various flow rates and concentrations. For example, to achieve a 100 mg/L
concentration of ADX in a process water flow of 40 gpm, the chemical must be metered at approximately
122 ml/min or 98% capacity of the metering pump utilized.
H2O2 at the Site is 32% concentration, therefore achieving a 200 mg/L concentration at 40 gpm process
water flow rate requires a chemical metering flow rate of approximately 84 milliliter/minute (ml/min) or 68%
of the metering pump capacity.
AOP Unit Operation
During testing in which catalyst was used, the AOP unit was operated with the slurry loop control valve
(SLCV) partially open to maintain a pressure between approximately 25 and 35 pounds per square inch
(psi) on the slurry loop pressure transmitter. The discharge pressure control valve (DPCV) was partially
opened to maintain a pressure between approximately 20 and 30 psi on the discharge pressure
transmitter. Additionally the accumulator level was maintained at approximately 60% full, the slurry feed
control valve (SFCV) was maintained at approximately 25% open and the catalyst recovery unit (CRU)
back pulse was initiated once per minute. The operational set points described above are consistent with
typical operational set points for other Photo-Cat AOP systems. Both a food grade and nanoparticle TiO2
catalyst were tested. The nanoparticle TiO2 catalyst was the material obtained from Purifics during initial
receipt and testing of the Photo-Cat at the Site.
During testing in which catalyst was not used, the AOP unit was operated under the same approximate
conditions with the exception that the SFCV was closed, and the CRU back pulse was disabled. Under
these conditions the AOP unit was operated as a traditional UV/Oxidant AOP, i.e. single pass and no
catalyst.
3.2 AOP System Testing Results
AOP system testing was performed on-Site between August 1 and 3, 2016. Analytical testing results are
summarized in Table 6 and first order rate constants and AOP performance data are summarized in
Table 7. Plotted data and modeled decay curves for each test are provided in Figures 2 through 6.
Analytical lab reports are provided in Appendix C.
A description of test results are provided below:
Test 0 – UV only, no catalyst, no chemical oxidant
AOP SYSTEM TESTING REPORT
arcadis.com
9
Test 0 was performed to provide a baseline for AOP performance and a comparison to treatment of
process water by photolysis alone. Photolysis is the disassociation of molecules by light alone and can be
an indication of UV lamp performance.
Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane were reduced by 36% to 57% during this test and the resulting first order
rate constant (rate constant) for 1,4-dioxane was modeled to be approximately 0.54 Lpm/kW. This test
had excellent correlation between Runs, with a coefficient of determination (R2) factor of 0.99. The results
of this test indicate the AOP unit lamps are in good working condition.
Test 1 – UV and FG TiO2 catalyst
Test 1 was performed to determine the performance of the AOP unit utilizing a FG TiO2 catalyst.
Typically, the Photo-Cat AOP uses a nano TiO2 catalyst, which has a much smaller diameter than the FG
TiO2 and should theoretically be more effective. Results of this test allow for a comparison between
catalyst types.
Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane were reduced by 47% to 60% during this test and the resulting rate
constant was modeled to be approximately 0.63 Lpm/kW. This test had very good correlation between
Runs, with a R2 factor of 0.91. The results of this test show minor improvement over Test 0, indicating
moderate production of hydroxyl radicals with the FG TiO2.
Test 2 – UV, FG TiO2, 100 mg/L ADX
Test 2 was performed to determine the performance of the AOP unit utilizing the FG TiO2 catalyst and
ADX chemical oxidant. ADX is a proprietary chemical provided by Purifics and is supposed to enhance
operation of the AOP. During this test, ADX was injected into the AOP system influent at an approximate
concentration of 100 mg/L.
Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane were reduced by 52% to 62% during this test and the resulting rate
constant was modeled to be approximately 0.64 Lpm/kW. This test had very good correlation between
Runs, with a R2 factor of 0.93. The results of this test show effectively no improvement over Test 1,
indicating limited effectiveness of the ADX during this test.
Test 3 – UV, FG TiO2, 60 mg/L ADX
Test 3 was performed the same as Test 2, except the concentration of ADX was reduced to 60 mg/L to
allow comparison between different concentration of ADX.
Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane were reduced by 48% to 73% during this test and the resulting rate
constant was modeled to be approximately 0.83 Lpm/kW. This test had excellent correlation between
Runs, with a R2 factor of 0.99. The results of this test show moderate improvement over Test 2, which
may indicate the ideal concentration of ADX is closer to 60 mg/L than 100 mg/L for this process water.
Test 4 – UV, no catalyst, 100 mg/L ADX
Test 4 was performed to determine performance of the AOP unit utilizing no catalyst and ADX. During
this test the AOP unit was operated as a traditional UV/Oxidant AOP, i.e. single pass and no catalyst.
ADX was injected into the AOP system influent at an approximate concentration of 100 mg/L.
Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane were reduced by 57% to 67% during this test and the resulting rate
constant was modeled to be approximately 0.67 Lpm/kW. This test had good correlation between Runs,
AOP SYSTEM TESTING REPORT
arcadis.com 10
with a R2 factor of 0.79. The results of this test show moderate reduction in performance compare to Test
3, but similar results to Test 2.
Test 5 – UV, no catalyst, 150 mg/L H2O2
Test 5 was performed to determine performance of the AOP unit utilizing H2O2, but no catalyst. During
this test the AOP unit was operated as a traditional UV/Oxidant AOP, i.e. single pass and no catalyst.
H2O2 was injected into the AOP system influent at an approximate concentration of 150 mg/L.
Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane were reduced by 38% to 100% during this test. Run A, operating at 30
gpm and 120 kW produced a result of non-detect (ND) for 1,4-dioxane in effluent. This result is
considered anomalous when compared to Runs B and C. If Run A is included in the model analysis of
data the resulting R2 factor is 0.07 and effectively shows no correlation. While in comparison, if Run A is
removed from the model analysis of data the resulting R2 factor is 1.0 and shows perfect correlation.
Further Run A represents the mid-point operational power to flow ratio (1.06 kW/Lpm) of Test 5, hence
since Run A did not utilize the maximum power to flow ratio for the Test and both the low and maximum
power to flow ratio results have perfect correlation, the likelihood of Run A being an anomaly is very high.
Therefore for the purpose of this report, Run A data is not used for the model analysis of the rate constant,
e.g. the rate constant accepted as the result for this test is approximately 0.59 Lpm/kW. The effective
results for this show only slight improvement compared to the baseline test (Test 0).
Test 6 – UV, no catalyst, 200 mg/L H2O2
Test 6 was performed the same as Test 5, except the concentration of H2O2 was increased to 200 mg/L to
allow comparison between different concentration of H2O2.
Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane were reduced by 40% to 64% during this test and the resulting rate
constant was modeled to be approximately 0.63 Lpm/kW. This test had excellent correlation between
Runs, with a R2 factor of 0.99. The results of this test show moderate improvement over Test 5, which
may indicate the ideal concentration of H2O2 is greater than 200 mg/L for this process water.
Test 7 – UV, nano TiO2, 150 mg/L H2O2
Test 7 was performed to determine the performance of the AOP unit utilizing the standard Photo-Cat
specified nano TiO2 catalyst and H2O2. During this test, H2O2 was injected into the AOP system influent at
an approximate concentration of 150 mg/L.
Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane were reduced by 54% to 78% during this test and the resulting rate
constant was modeled to be approximately 0.89 Lpm/kW. This test had good correlation between Runs,
with a R2 factor of 0.82. The results of this test show moderate improvement over previous testing with
FG TiO2 and H2O2 alone. Based on these results the nano TiO2 catalyst provides better performance than
the FG TiO2.
Test 8 – UV, nano TiO2, 100 mg/L ADX
Test 8 was performed to determine the performance of the AOP unit utilizing the standard Photo-Cat
specified nano TiO2 catalyst and ADX. During this test, ADX was injected into the AOP system influent at
an approximate concentration of 100 mg/L.
Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane were reduced by 65% to 78% during this test and the resulting rate
constant was modeled to be approximately 1.02 Lpm/kW. This test had very good correlation between
AOP SYSTEM TESTING REPORT
arcadis.com 11
Runs, with a R2 factor of 0.93. Results from this test were the best of all test performed during the August
testing event. Based on these results, the combination of ADX and nano TiO2, are the most effective for
the reduction of 1,4-dioxane in this process water, but H2O2 and nano TiO2 appear to be equally effective.
Additional Bromide Sampling
Bromide is an aggressive radical scavenger and can adversely affect the performance of AOP systems,
by consuming hydroxyl radicals and limiting their availability for the destruction of target contaminants.
Bromide was detected in all samples analyzed for bromide during the August 2016 AOP testing event. To
determine the source of bromide in process water, additional samples for bromide were collected on
August 16, 2016. Water samples were collected and analyzed for bromide from extraction well PWDR-1
and combined Leactate and from chemical solutions utilized by the clarifier (Ferric Chloride and Lime).
Analytical results for these samples are provided in Table 6.
Results from these samples indicate that the source of bromide in process water is Site groundwater and
leachate, as bromide concentrations were 6 mg/L and 10 mg/L for PWDR-1 and Leachate, respectively.
Ferric Chloride and Lime samples were both ND for bromide, and therefore were shown not to contribute
to bromide concentrations in process water.
3.3 Conclusions
Of the nine tests performed, the best AOP unit performance was observed when both the nano TiO2
catalyst and chemical oxidant (H2O2 or ADX) were used (Tests 7 and 8). 1,4-dioxane concentrations were
reduced by 78% for both tests and rate constants were modeled to be approximately 0.89 and 1.02
Lpm/kW for Test 7 and Test 8, respectively. However, these rate constants for 1,4-dioxane are
considered extremely low. As stated previously, a rate constant of 10 Lpm/kW or greater is generally
desirable when designing an AOP system. In cases where water is considered very difficult to treat, a
lower rate constant may be acceptable, however in those instances in which a low rate constant would be
acceptable the influent concentration of the contaminate and/or the system flow rate should be relatively
low, otherwise the cost of operating the system due to power requirements becomes much less attractive.
In the case of the Seaboard Site, based on the testing results, the best case rate constant observed was
approximately 1 Lpm/kW. With no safety factor, the AOP unit power required to treat the Site process
water at the design flow rate of 50 gpm, an influent concentration of 3,000 µg/L and a design effluent
concentration of <3 µg/L would be approximately 1,250 kW, more than five times larger than the existing
AOP unit. An AOP unit this large would not be attractive for this Site, due to costs for power and extreme
temperature increases to the process water through the AOP unit, which would require additional systems
to reduce the water temperature to levels acceptable by other infrastructure.
As discussed in Section 2.1, it is recognized that the water at the Site presents challenges for treatment of
1,4-dioxane. Radical scavengers, such as alkalinity, bromide, chloride and COD are known to consume
hydroxyl radicals within an AOP reactor, limiting radical availability for the destruction of contaminates,
such as 1,4-dioxane. As seen in the test results, photolysis alone (Test 0) was shown to remove 1,4-
dioxane concentrations by 36 to 57%. Therefore, even for the best case scenario tested (Test 8) at least
half of the 1,4-dioxane reduction can be contributed to photolysis. This result may implicate radical
scavengers are contributing to the limited performance of the AOP.
AOP SYSTEM TESTING REPORT
arcadis.com 12
Based on the poor performance of the AOP unit during testing and the challenging influent water quality,
Arcadis does not believe the existing AOP system, Photo-Cat, could be successfully implemented at the
Site to consistently reduce 1,4-dioxane concentrations in the existing pre-treated process water to below
design effluent concentrations (3 µg/L).
Purifics states in the final On-Site Test Report (Purifics, 2009d), “Purifics has concluded that the
groundwater at the Seaboard site contains very high levels of radical scavengers.” Section 4.4 “Radical
Scavengers,” following that statement discusses the potential for the presence of surfactants. While
acknowledging the presence of very high levels of radical scavengers within the same On-site Test
Report, Purifics proposes the full-scale Photo-Cat system power requirement will be “approximately 145
kw” for “full-scale operation at a flow rate of 50gpm.” As discussed previously, a 1,4-dioxane rate constant
of at least 9 Lpm/kW would be required to meet the design objective for 1,4-dioxane effluent
concentrations for a 145 kW Photo-Cat.
Within the Purifics Final Proposal (Purifics, 2010) the final proposed AOP system is a “245 kW DQL
Photo-Cat.” As discussed previously, a 1,4-dioxane rate constant of at least 5.3 Lpm/kW would be
required to meet the design objectives for 1,4-dioxane effluent concentrations for a 245 kW Photo-Cat.
There is no explanation for the increased power requirement within the proposal and there is no
discussion concerning the need to reduce surfactant or other radical scavenger concentrations.
As stated previously, based on the testing performed during the August 2016 event and comparison to the
similar results of the 2014 testing event, the existing Photo-Cat is undersized and cannot achieve the rate
constants required to meet the required performance. Based on the analysis of the data collected from
the August 2016 event, the Photo-Cat would require approximately 5 times more power than the existing
system to achieve design criteria. In order for the existing PhotoCat unit to meet the design criteria and
performance requirements of reduction of 1,4-dioxane concentrations to < 3 µg/L, additional pretreatment
to remove radical scavengers and thereby increase the AOP first order rate constant for 1,4-dioxane
would also be required. These additional pretreatment measures were not included in the delivered
system and would likely add significantly to the cost of the overall system.
Long Term Operational Issues with Photo-Cat
Some additional significant potential issues were noted with the Photo-Cat unit during the August 2016
event at the Seaboard Site that may cause operational issues if this system is operated long term.
Specifically, based on our inspection of the lamps currently utilized by this Photo-Cat, the lamps are
believed to use a defective insulation on the lamp power cables. The defective insulation may degrade
over time and cause lamp failure or limited UV transmittance through the quartz sleeves. Lamps currently
utilized by Purifics use an upgraded insulation, and we understand Purifics had replaced these lamps in
units similar to the one at the Site.
Additionally, the lamp drivers utilized to power the lamps are proprietary to Purifics and are not available
through an alternative vendor. Currently at the Seaboard Site, within the existing Photo-Cat, there are two
spare lamp drivers. As these drivers fail, replacement drivers would have to be purchased directly
through Purifics.
Finally, the seal plug removal tool could not be located at the Site. This tool is required to remove quartz
sleeves, so they may be inspected or replaced. This tool is only available through Purifics.
TABLES
Table 1
Initial Pilot Testing Results Summary
Seaboard Group
High Point, North Carolina
DRAFT
"Privileged and Confidential - Attorney Work Product"Page 1 of 4
Sample ID SEA-PUR-1-IN SEA-PUR-1-AS SEA-PUR-1-EFF SEA-PUR-2-IN SEA-PUR-2-AS SEA-PUR-2-EFF SEA-PUR-2a-AS SEA-PUR-2a-EFF SEA-PUR-2b-IN SEA-PUR-2b-AS SEA-PUR-2b-EFF
Date 3/18/2009 3/18/2009 3/18/2009 3/19/2009 3/19/2009 3/19/2009 3/19/2009 3/19/2009 3/19/2009 3/19/2009 3/19/2009
Time 1600 1600 1600 1100 1100 1100 1315 1315 1600 1600 1600
1,4-Dioxane ug/L 2100 --171 --1470 829 1840 963 --2130 1650
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/L 729 ND ND 796 ND ND ----935 ND ND
1,1-Dichloroethane ug/L 1570 ND ND 1670 ND ND ----1990 ND ND
1,1-Dichloroethene ug/L 652 ND ND 633 ND ND ----745 ND NDAcetoneug/L ND 10.3 187 ND 7.3 74 ----ND 20.6 46.8
Benzene ug/L 72.7 ND ND 75 ND ND ----88.1 ND ND
Chlorobenzene ug/L 2380 ND ND 2590 ND ND ----3210 ND NDChloroethaneug/L 383 ND ND 183 ND ND ----445 ND ND
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L 3070 ND ND 3190 ND ND ----3880 ND ND
Tetrachloroethene ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ----ND ND ND
Toluene ug/L 163 ND ND 173 ND ND ----188 ND 2.9
Vinyl Chloride ug/L 414 ND ND 448 ND ND ----508 ND ND
Iron mg/L 5.9 0.05 --5.4 0.05 ------6.3 0.05 --
Manganese mg/L 8.3 0.045 --8 0.013 ------7.8 0.01 --
Footnotes on Page 4.
Parameter
Table 1
Initial Pilot Testing Results Summary
Seaboard Group
High Point, North Carolina
DRAFT
"Privileged and Confidential - Attorney Work Product"Page 2 of 4
Sample ID
Date
Time
1,4-Dioxane ug/L
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/L
1,1-Dichloroethane ug/L
1,1-Dichloroethene ug/LAcetoneug/L
Benzene ug/L
Chlorobenzene ug/LChloroethaneug/L
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L
Tetrachloroethene ug/L
Toluene ug/L
Vinyl Chloride ug/L
Iron mg/L
Manganese mg/L
Parameter
SEA-PUR-3-AS SEA-PUR-3-EFF SEA-PUR-3a-AS SEA-PUR-3a-EFF SEA-PUR-3b-IN SEA-PUR-3b-AS SEA-PUR-3b-EFF SEA-PUR-4-IN SEA-PUR-4-AS SEA-PUR-4-EFF
4/7/2009 4/7/2009 4/7/2009 4/7/2009 4/7/2009 4/7/2009 4/7/2009 4/8/2009 4/8/2009 4/8/2009
1430 1425 1530 1530 1630 1630 1630 1330 1330 1330
1300 44.5 1400 98.3 --1470 229 --1830 443
--------826 ND ND 901 ND ND
--------1680 2 1.6 1850 ND ND
--------676 ND ND 822 ND ND--------545 28 167 1940 230 159
--------72.1 ND ND 92.9 ND ND
--------2340 6.5 ND 2820 ND ND--------423 ND ND 508 ND ND
--------3060 5.5 ND 3770 ND ND
--------21.9 ND ND 18.9 ND ND
--------197 ND ND 187 ND ND
--------478 ND ND 583 ND ND
--------5.3 0.025 --5.5 ND --
--------8.1 ND --7.7 0.44 --
Footnotes on Page 4.
Table 1
Initial Pilot Testing Results Summary
Seaboard Group
High Point, North Carolina
DRAFT
"Privileged and Confidential - Attorney Work Product"Page 3 of 4
Sample ID
Date
Time
1,4-Dioxane ug/L
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/L
1,1-Dichloroethane ug/L
1,1-Dichloroethene ug/LAcetoneug/L
Benzene ug/L
Chlorobenzene ug/LChloroethaneug/L
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L
Tetrachloroethene ug/L
Toluene ug/L
Vinyl Chloride ug/L
Iron mg/L
Manganese mg/L
Parameter
SEA-PUR-5-AS SEA-PUR-5-EFF SEA-PUR-5a-EFF SEA-PUR-5b-EFF SEA-PUR-5c-EFF SEA-PUR-5d-IN SEA-PUR-5d-EFF SEA-PUR-6-EFF SEA-PUR-6a-IN SEA-PUR-6a-EFF
4/16/2009 4/16/2009 4/16/2009 4/16/2009 4/16/2009 4/16/2009 4/16/2009 4/28/2009 4/28/2009 4/28/2009
1000 1000 1130 1250 1445 1700 1700 1115 1325 1315
1350 194 308 87.7 522 2240 250 <5.0 1600 16
3.7 3.2 ------878 7.4 ND 960 3.3
12.8 11.5 ------1880 25.4 ND 1700 9.5
ND ND ------722 ND ND 1000 ND58.1 192 ------102 175 440 ND 380
ND ND ------81.6 ND ND 90 ND
22.5 ND ------1780 1.9 ND 2800 ND1.9 1.7 ------296 2.1 ND 560 ND
16.4 ND ------3790 2.6 ND 3600 ND
ND ND ------12.2 ND ND 19 ND
ND ND ------147 ND ND 170 ND
ND ND ------383 ND ND 560 ND
--------------------
--------------------
Footnotes on Page 4.
Table 1
Initial Pilot Testing Results Summary
Seaboard Group
High Point, North Carolina
DRAFT
"Privileged and Confidential - Attorney Work Product"Page 4 of 4
Sample ID
Date
Time
1,4-Dioxane ug/L
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/L
1,1-Dichloroethane ug/L
1,1-Dichloroethene ug/LAcetoneug/L
Benzene ug/L
Chlorobenzene ug/LChloroethaneug/L
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L
Tetrachloroethene ug/L
Toluene ug/L
Vinyl Chloride ug/L
Iron mg/L
Manganese mg/L
Parameter
SEA-PUR-6b-EFF SEA-PUR-6c-EFF SEA-PUR-7-IN SEA-PUR-7-EFF SEA-PUR-7a-EFF SEA-PUR-8-IN SEA-PUR-8-AS SEA-PUR-8-EFF SEA-PUR-9-IN SEA-PUR-9-AS SEA-PUR-9-EFF
4/28/2009 4/28/2009 4/29/2009 4/29/2009 4/29/2009 5/12/2009 5/12/2009 5/12/2009 5/13/2009 5/13/2009 5/13/2009
1545 1705 100 1015 1230 1630 1630 1630 1645 1645 1645
85 100 1900 58 33 2750 --<2.0 3030 --<2.0
4.1 4.1 760 4.5 2.9 1100 5.7 <5.0 1220 8.3 4.7
12 13 1600 13 11 2220 21 12.1 2800 29.6 17.1
ND ND 680 ND ND 1160 <1.0 <5.0 1300 5.3 <1.0340230ND390440<100.0 79 399 90.1 7 367
ND ND 87 ND ND 104 <1.0 <5.0 121 1.4 <1.0
ND ND 1800 ND ND 3290 42.7 <5.0 4180 70.1 <1.0NDND340NDND5923.2 <5.0 672 4.1 1.2
ND ND 3300 ND ND 4680 30.4 <5.0 5640 71.3 <1.0
ND ND 14 ND ND <20.0 <1.0 <5.0 20.8 <1.0 <1.0
ND ND 150 ND ND 201 <1.0 <5.0 233 2.8 <1.0
ND ND 370 ND ND 654 <1.0 <5.0 733 2.3 <1.0
----------6.5 --0.091 7.1 --0.12
----------7.4 --ND 7.4 --ND
Footnotes:
ug/L - micrograms per Liter
mg/L - Milligrams per Liter
ND - Non Detect
Table 2
2014 Full Scale System Testing Results
Seaboard Group
High Point, North Carolina
Page 1 of 2
Sample ID AOP INF AOP 8%AOP 16%AOP 24%PWDR-1 INF AOP 0%AOP INF AOP 0%AOP 8%AOP 8% TiO2 INF HEAT AOP TiO2 - 2Hr
Date 9/29/2014 9/29/2014 9/29/2014 9/29/2014 9/29/2014 9/29/2014 10/2/2014 10/2/2014 10/2/2014 10/2/2014
Time 1215 1300 1330 1400 1315 1445 1030 1030 1115 1130
1,4-Dioxane ug/L 3170 D 1170 D 1420 D 1210 D 3260 D 1280 D 2970 D 997 D 62.6 D 480 D 2840 D 572 D
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/L ND ND 0.42 J ND 2900 D ND ND ND ND ND
1,1-Dichloroethane ug/L 5.2 5.0 3.8 2.9 2300 D 1.7 0.72 J 0.72 J 0.67 J 0.70 J
1,1-Dichloroethene ug/L ND ND ND ND 1700 D ND ND ND ND ND
Acetone ug/L 14 230 220 230 ND 220 6.7 230 370 260
Benzene ug/L 0.41 J ND ND ND 160 D ND ND ND ND ND
Chlorobenzene ug/L 51 0.87 J 0.79 J 0.56 J 7100 D 0.44 J 11 ND ND 1.4
Chloroethane ug/L ND ND ND ND 2100 D ND ND ND ND ND
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L 30 2.4 2.2 1.7 5400 D ND 3.8 ND ND ND
Tetrachloroethene ug/L ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Toluene ug/L 0.72 J 0.90 J 0.72 J 0.74 J 330 D 0.62 J ND 0.42 J ND ND
Vinyl Chloride ug/L ND ND ND ND 960 D ND ND ND ND ND
Parameter
Table 2
2014 Full Scale System Testing Results
Seaboard Group
High Point, North Carolina
Page 2 of 2
Sample ID
Date
Time
1,4-Dioxane ug/L
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ug/L
1,1-Dichloroethane ug/L
1,1-Dichloroethene ug/L
Acetone ug/L
Benzene ug/L
Chlorobenzene ug/L
Chloroethane ug/L
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ug/L
Tetrachloroethene ug/L
Toluene ug/L
Vinyl Chloride ug/L
Parameter
AOP INF AOP 8-4 AOP 8-3 AOP 16-3 AOP 16-4 AOP 16-4 Ti02 AOP 16-3 Ti02 AOP 8-3 Ti02 AOP 8-4 Ti02
10/9/2014 10/9/2014 10/9/2014 10/9/2014 10/9/2014 10/9/2014 10/9/2014 10/9/2014 10/9/2014
1340 1400 1415 1435 1500 1545 1610 1625 1640
3060 D 124 D 110 D 15.8 ND 417 D 405 D 387 D 423 D
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
7.6 5.7 2.5 D 3.0 JD ND 1.8 1.6 JD 2.4 JD 2.9 D
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
8.3 340 390 D 420 D 390 D 400 300 D 270 D 290 D
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
84 ND ND ND ND 4.9 4.2 D 5.7 D 6.2 D
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
39 ND ND ND ND 1.6 2.1 D 2.4 JD 3.2 D
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1.0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Table 3
2014 Full Scale System Reaction Rate Constants
Seaboard GroupHigh Point, North Carolina
Page 1 of 1
Run H2O2 Concentration(mg/L)pH(SU)Flow Rate (gpm) Power (KW)Power / Flow(kW/Lpm)1,4 Dioxane Influent (ppb)1,4 Dioxane Effluent (ppb)Percent Removal (%)
Calculated 1,4 Dioxane
Rate Constant (Lpm/kW)
AOP 8%27 5 35 240 1.81 1170 63%0.55
AOP 16%54 5 35 240 1.81 1420 55%0.44
AOP 24%81 5 35 240 1.81 1210 62%0.53
AOP 0%0 5 35 240 1.81 1280 60%0.50
AOP 0%0 5 35 240 1.81 997 66%0.60
AOP 8%27 5 35 240 1.81 62.6 98%1.93
AOP 8% - TiO2 27 5 35 240 1.81 481 84%1.00
AOP TIO2 - 2Hr 0 5 35 240 1.81 572 81%0.91
AOP 8-4 27 4 35 240 1.81 124 96%1.77
AOP 8-3 27 3 35 240 1.81 110 96%1.83
AOP 16-3 54 3 35 240 1.81 15.8 99%2.90
AOP 16-4 54 4 35 240 1.81 2 100%4.04
AOP 16-4 TiO2 54 4 35 240 1.81 417 86%1.10
AOP 16-3 TiO2 54 3 35 240 1.81 405 87%1.11
AOP 8-3 TiO2 27 3 35 240 1.81 387 87%1.14
AOP 8-4 TiO2 27 4 35 240 1.81 423 86%1.09
Design June 1, 2009 NA NA 50 145 0.77 3000 3 100%9.00
Design April 28, 2010 NA NA 50 245 1.30 3000 3 100%5.33
Footnotes:
Tests perfromed by, designed by and data provided by Jamestown Engineering
kW/Lpm - Kilowatts per Liters per Minute
gpm - Gallons per Minute
ppb - Parts per Billion
KW - Kilowatt
% - Percent
3060
3060
3060
3060
3170
2970
Table 4
Influent Water Quality Data
Seaboard Group II
High Point, North Carolina
Page 1 of 1
Parameter Method Units Raw Influent 1 Photo-Cat Influent 2
Chemicals of Concern - 1,4-Dioxane
1,4-Dioxane 8260C ug/L 3,300 2,800
Chemicals of Concern - Volatile Organic Compounds
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 8260B ug/L 2,000 2.5
1,1-Dichloroethane 8260B ug/L 1,900 11
1,1-Dichloroethene 8260B ug/L 1,400 0.62
Acetone 8260B ug/L 1,000 38
Benzene 8260B ug/L 110 0.72
Chlorobenzene 8260B ug/L 5,600 73
Chloroethane 8260B ug/L 1,600 2.4
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 8260B ug/L 5,000 52
Tetrachloroethene 8260B ug/L 17 0.17
Toluene 8260B ug/L 220 1.2
Vinyl chloride 8260B ug/L 1,700 0.67
General Water Quality Parameters
Calcium 6010D mg/L 154 203
Magnesium 6010D mg/L 67.5 69.3
Iron 6010D mg/L 7.25 0.58
Manganese 6010D mg/L 5.69 4.22
Potassium 6010D mg/L 9.33 14
Sodium 6010D mg/L 59.5 73.8
Bicarbonate (as CaCO3)4500 mg/L 640 14
pH (SU)4500 mg/L 6.4 2.9
Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 310.2 mg/L 640 14
Hardness 2340B mg/L 660 790
Calcium Hardness 2340B mg/L 390 510
Magnesium Hardness 2340B mg/L 280 280
Bromide 300.0 mg/L 2.1 - 10 3 7.5 - 14
Chloride 300.0 mg/L 190 400
Sulfate as SO4 300 mg/L 9.3 57
Nitrate as N 353.2 mg/L 0.025 0.025
Nitrite as N 354.2 mg/L 0.017 0.017
Nitrate/Nitrite as N 355.2 mg/L 0.041 0.041
Total Dissolved Solids 2540C mg/L 960 1,800
Total Suspended Solids 2540D mg/L 16 2.5
Chemical Oxygen Demand 5220D mg/L 120 99
Total Organic Carbon 5310B mg/L 22 21
Footnotes:
1 Sample ID "TEST 0 INF 80116" - collected on 8-01-2016, influent water made up of
groundwater and leachate, estimated to be 80-90% groundwater and 10-20% leachate
2 Sample ID "Test 0 PC INF 80116" - collected after pre-treatment system and
directly prior to the Purifics Phot-Cat Unit
3 There was an initial influent sample with a bromide detection of 2.1 mg/L, additional bromide data was collecting indicating
that the well PWDR-1 was 6.0 mg/L and the leachate was 10.0 mg/L. This range in bromide
concentrations is reflected here.
4 This is the range of bromide concentrations observed from seven Photo-Cat influent bromide
samples collected during the test.
mg/L - milligrams per Liter
Table 5
Photo-Cat Testing Plan
Seaboard GroupHigh Point, North Carolina
Page 1 of 2
Test ID Run ID Flow Rate
(gpm)pH Chemical Additive Chemical Dose
(mg/L)TiO2 kW Sample ID
8/1/2016
Test 0 INF NA NA NA NA NA NA Test 0 INF PC 080116
Run A 40 4.2 N NA N 240 Test 0 Run A Eff 080116
Run B 40 4.2 N NA N 120 Test 0 Run B Eff 080116
Run C 30 4.2 N NA N 120 Test 0 Run C Eff 080116
8/2/2016
Test 1 INF NA NA NA NA NA NA Test 1 INF PC 080216
Run A 40 4.2 N NA Y 240 Test 1 Run A Eff 080216
Run B 40 4.2 N NA Y 120 Test 1 Run B Eff 080216
Run C 30 4.2 N NA Y 120 Test 1 Run C Eff 080216
Test 2 INF NA NA NA NA NA NA Test 2 INF PC 080216
Run A 40 4.2 ADX 100 Y 240 Test 2 Run A Eff 080216
Run B 40 4.2 ADX 100 Y 120 Test 2 Run B Eff 080216
Run C 30 4.2 ADX 100 Y 120 Test 2 Run C Eff 080216
Test 3 INF NA NA NA NA NA NA Test 3 INF PC 080216
Run A 30 4.2 ADX 60 Y 120 Test 3 Run A Eff 080216
Run B 40 4.2 ADX 60 Y 120 Test 3 Run B Eff 080216
Run C 40 4.2 ADX 60 Y 240 Test 3 Run C Eff 080216
8/3/2016
Test 4 INF NA NA NA NA NA NA Test 4 INF PC 080316
Run A 40 4.2 ADX 100 N 240 Test 4 Run A Eff 080316
Run B 40 4.2 ADX 100 N 120 Test 4 Run B Eff 080316
Run C 30 4.2 ADX 100 N 120 Test 4 Run C Eff 080316
Test 5 INF NA NA NA NA NA NA Test 5 INF PC 080316
Run A 30 4.2 H2O2 150 N 120 Test 5 Run A Eff 080316
Run B 40 4.2 H2O2 150 N 120 Test 5 Run B Eff 080316
Run C 40 4.2 H2O2 150 N 240 Test 5 Run C Eff 080316
Test 6 INF NA NA NA NA NA NA Test 6 INF PC 080316
Run A 40 4.2 H2O2 200 N 240 Test 6 Run A Eff 080316
Run B 40 4.2 H2O2 200 N 120 Test 6 Run B Eff 080316
Run C 30 4.2 H2O2 200 N 120 Test 6 Run C Eff 080316
Test 7 INF NA NA NA NA NA NA Test 7 INF PC 080316
Run A 30 4.2 H2O2 150 Y (P25)120 Test 7 Run A Eff 080316
Run B 40 4.2 H2O2 150 Y (P25)120 Test 7 Run B Eff 080316
Run C 40 4.2 H2O2 150 Y (P25)240 Test 7 Run C Eff 080316
Footnotes on Page 2.
Table 5
Photo-Cat Testing Plan
Seaboard GroupHigh Point, North Carolina
Page 2 of 2
Test ID Run ID Flow Rate
(gpm)pH Chemical Additive Chemical Dose
(mg/L)TiO2 kW Sample ID
Test 8 INF NA NA NA NA NA NA Test 8 INF PC 080316
Run A 40 4.2 ADX 100 Y (P25)240 Test 8 Run A Eff 080316
Run B 40 4.2 ADX 100 Y (P25)120 Test 8 Run B Eff 080316
Run C 30 4.2 ADX 100 Y (P25)120 Test 8 Run C Eff 080316
Footnotes:
4. 12% by weight premixed ADX solution concentration.
5. 30% H2O2 solution concentration
6. Chemical doses are provided as pure chemical concentration.
gpm - gallons per minute
mg/L - milligrams per Liter
TiO2 - Titanium Dioxide
Kw - Kilowatts
NA - not applicable
H2O2 - Hydrogen Peroxide
1. Influent groundwater concentration shall be approximately 80% extracted groundwater and 20% landfill leachate.
Table 6
Advanced Oxidation Process (AOP)
Testing Results
Seaboard Group
High Point, North Carolina
Page 1 of 5
Parameter TEST 0 INF
80116
AS EFF
80116
TEST 0 PC INF
80116
TEST 0 RUN A EFF
80116
TEST 0 RUN B EFF
80116
TEST 0 RUN B EFF
80116
Test 1 PC INF
080216
Test 1 Run A EFF
080216
Test 1 Run B EFF
080216
Test 1 Run C EFF
080216
8260C (µg/L)
1,4-Dioxane 3300 2900 2800 1400 1800 1700 3000 1200 1600 1300
8260B (µg/L)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 2000 5.5 2.5 4.6 5.8 4.2 13 7.5 7.7 5.1
1,1-Dichloroethane 1900 29 11 26 28 23 40 31 28 24
1,1-Dichloroethene 1400 1.2 0.62 0.21 0.21 0.21 4.2 0.21 0.21 0.21
Acetone 1000 15 38 220 150 180 14 240 150 200
Benzene 110 1.7 0.72 1.2 0.87 1.1 2.2 0.92 0.41 0.65
Chlorobenzene 5600 180 73 13 24 17 180 4.3 18 12
Chloroethane 1600 5.4 2.4 6.8 5.8 5.3 12 9.8 7.9 5.5
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 5000 130 52 18 32 20 160 9.4 26 16
Tetrachloroethene 17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17
Toluene 220 2.6 1.2 2.9 1.9 2.8 3.4 1.8 0.96 1.2
Vinyl chloride 1700 1.1 0.67 1.0 0.51 0.81 4.6 0.66 0.32 0.32
6010D (mgL)
Iron 7.25 0.146 0.576 ------0.25 ------
Manganese 5.69 2.37 4.22 ------2.41 ------
300.0 (mg/L)
Bromide 2.1 9.6 7.5 ------12 ------
Chloride 190 410 400 ------400 ------
Footnotes on Page 5.
Table 6
Advanced Oxidation Process (AOP)
Testing Results
Seaboard Group
High Point, North Carolina
Page 2 of 5
Parameter
8260C (µg/L)
1,4-Dioxane
8260B (µg/L)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Acetone
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
6010D (mgL)
Iron
Manganese
300.0 (mg/L)
Bromide
Chloride
Test 2 PC INF
080216
Test 2 Run A EFF
080216
Test 2 Run B EFF
080216
Test 2 Run C EFF
080216
Test 3 PC INF
080216
Test 3 Run A EFF
080216
Test 3 Run B EFF
080216
Test 3 Run C EFF
080216
2900 1100 1400 1300 2700 1200 1400 720
9.7 6.3 7.2 5.2 5.5 3.8 3.3 1.5
31 26 29 25 24 20 16 10
2.8 0.21 0.21 0.21 1.5 0.21 0.21 0.21
16 240 160 190 14 200 130 230
1.6 0.58 0.40 0.49 1.4 0.47 0.15 0.15
150 4.9 17 11 140 8.4 13 0.91
8.6 8.9 7.8 5.5 5.2 4.3 3.4 3.1
120 8.6 23 15 110 12 17 2.5
0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17
2.5 1.2 0.86 0.97 2.2 1.2 0.64 0.74
2.9 0.81 0.32 0.32 1.5 0.32 0.32 0.32
0.21 ------0.26 ------
2.24 ------2.28 ------
14 ------13 ------
370 ------390 ------
Footnotes on Page 5.
Table 6
Advanced Oxidation Process (AOP)
Testing Results
Seaboard Group
High Point, North Carolina
Page 3 of 5
Parameter
8260C (µg/L)
1,4-Dioxane
8260B (µg/L)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Acetone
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
6010D (mgL)
Iron
Manganese
300.0 (mg/L)
Bromide
Chloride
Test 4 PC INF
080316
Test 4 Run A Eff
080316
Test 4 Run B Eff
080316
Test 4 Run C Eff
080316
Test 5 PC INF
080316
Test 5 Run A Eff
080316
Test 5 Run B Eff
080316
Test 5 Run C Eff
080316
2800 1000 1200 920 2600 1.2 1600 940
5.8 5.2 6.5 4.0 2.9 2.2 2.5 1.4
21 22 22 17 12 6.1 10 7.6
1.6 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.78 0.21 0.21 0.21
14 220 180 220 10 340 150 230
0.97 0.62 0.15 0.15 0.64 0.15 0.15 0.15
95 1.6 6.3 2.3 74 0.17 6.1 0.48
5.4 8.3 6.2 4.0 3.0 0.23 2.1 3.2
86 5.1 14 6.8 53 0.15 10 1.9
0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17
1.7 1.3 0.14 0.14 0.96 0.14 0.50 1.0
1.9 0.44 0.32 0.32 0.84 0.32 0.32 0.32
0.18 ------0.22 ------
2.29 ------2.31 ------
12 ------12 ------
380 ------380 ------
Footnotes on Page 5.
Table 6
Advanced Oxidation Process (AOP)
Testing Results
Seaboard Group
High Point, North Carolina
Page 4 of 5
Parameter
8260C (µg/L)
1,4-Dioxane
8260B (µg/L)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Acetone
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
6010D (mgL)
Iron
Manganese
300.0 (mg/L)
Bromide
Chloride
Test 6 PC INF
080316
Test 6 Run A Eff
080316
Test 6 Run B Eff
080316
Test 6 Run C Eff
080316
Test 7 PC INF
080316
Test 7 Run A EFF
080316
Test 7 Run B EFF
080316
Test 7 Run C EFF
080316
2500 900 1500 1300 2600 570 1200 670
1.7 0.75 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.57 0.84
8.3 7.6 8.8 9.7 9.7 7.5 4.8 6.6
0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21
20 240 140 180 12 210 170 270
0.52 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.64 0.15 0.15 0.15
64 0.57 7.1 4.2 77 2.7 4.1 2.1
0.23 2.4 0.23 1.4 1.5 1.4 0.23 1.8
40 2.2 9.9 7.3 50 3.7 4.5 2.4
0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17
0.76 1.0 0.47 0.76 0.87 0.70 0.43 0.59
0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32
0.20 ------0.20 ------
2.19 ------2.31 ------
13 --------------
360 --------------
Footnotes on Page 5.
Table 6
Advanced Oxidation Process (AOP)
Testing Results
Seaboard Group
High Point, North Carolina
Page 5 of 5
Parameter
8260C (µg/L)
1,4-Dioxane
8260B (µg/L)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Acetone
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Vinyl chloride
6010D (mgL)
Iron
Manganese
300.0 (mg/L)
Bromide
Chloride
Test 8 PC INF
080316
Test 8 Run A EFF
080316
Test 8 Run B EFF
080316
Test 8 Run C EFF
080316
PWDR-1
081616
Leachate
081616
Lime Slurry
081616
Ferric Chloride
081616
2600 580 920 630 --------
2.2 3.4 4.8 4.6 --------
12 15 20 18 --------
0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 --------
27 280 220 260 --------
0.57 0.15 0.15 0.15 --------
81 2.5 6.9 2.4 --------
2.2 3.8 4.5 4.4 --------
48 3.7 11 4.5 --------
0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 --------
0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 --------
0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 --------
0.18 --------------
2.17 --------------
--------6.0 10 0.05 U 2.5 U
----------------
Footnotes:
µg/L - Micrograms per liter
mg/L - Milligrams per liter
U - The analyte was analyzed for but not detected to the level shown
Table 7
Advanced Oxidation Process (AOP)
Reaction Rate Constants
Seaboard Group
High Point, North Carolina
Page 1 of 1
Run Flow Rate1
(gpm)
Power
(KW)
Power / Flow
(kW/Lpm)
1,4 Dioxane
Influent (ppb)
1,4 Dioxane
Effluent (ppb)
Percent
Removal (%)
Calculated 1,4 Dioxane Rate Constant (Lpm/kW)
Modeled 1,4 Dioxane Rate Constant (Lpm/kW)
Coefficient of
Determination
(R2)
1,4-dioxane target
(ppb)
Power Required to meet
target at 50 gpm2
(KW)
Test 0 Run A 41 240 1.55 1200 57%0.55
Test 0 Run B 41 120 0.77 1800 36%0.57
Test 0 Run C 31 120 1.02 1700 39%0.49
Test 1 Run A 42 240 1.51 1200 60%0.61
Test 1 Run B 43 120 0.74 1600 47%0.85
Test 1 Run C 32 120 0.99 1300 57%0.84
Test 2 Run A 41 240 1.55 1100 62%0.63
Test 2 Run B 40 120 0.79 1400 52%0.92
Test 2 Run C 31 120 1.02 1300 55%0.78
Test 3 Run A 32 120 0.99 1200 56%0.82
Test 3 Run B 42 120 0.76 1400 48%0.87
Test 3 Run C 40 240 1.59 720 73%0.83
Test 4 Run A 39 240 1.63 1000 64%0.63
Test 4 Run B 41 120 0.77 1200 57%1.09
Test 4 Run C 30 120 1.06 920 67%1.05
Test 5 Run A 30 120 1.06 2 100%6.78
Test 5 Run B 39 120 0.81 1600 38%0.60
Test 5 Run C 37 240 1.72 940 64%0.59
Test 6 Run A 39 240 1.63 900 64%0.63
Test 6 Run B 40 120 0.79 1500 40%0.64
Test 6 Run C 33 120 0.96 1300 48%0.68
Test 7 Run A 29 120 1.09 570 78%1.39
Test 7 Run B 39 120 0.81 1200 54%0.95
Test 7 Run C 38 240 1.67 670 74%0.81
Test 8 Run A 41 240 1.55 580 78%0.97
Test 8 Run B 41 120 0.77 920 65%1.34
Test 8 Run C 29 120 1.09 630 76%1.29
Design June 1, 2009 50 145 0.77 3000 3 100%9.00 145
Design April 28, 2010 50 245 1.30 3000 3 100%5.33 245
Footnotes:
1 - Flow rates for respective Test Runs are those at the time of effluent sample collection.
2 - Power requirement calculations utilize modeled first order rate constant.
kW/Lpm - Kilowatts per Liters per Minute
gpm - Gallons per Minute
ppb - Parts per Billion
KW - Kilowatt
% - Percent
*- Modeled Rate constant and R2 values not including Test 5 Run A effluent data.
** - Modeled Rate constant and R2 values including Test 5 Run A effluent data.
2500
2600
2600 1253
3
3
0.63 0.99
2800
3000
2900
2700
2800
2600
0.83 0.99
0.67 0.79
0.59 * / 1.29 **1.0 * / 0.07 **
0.54 0.99
1.00
3
1306
2030
1549
1929
2167 / 991
2018
1437
3
3
3
23943
3
3
3
0.91
0.64 0.93
NA NA
0.89 0.82
1.02 0.93

FIGURES

Clarifier Aeration
Tank Bag FiltersSettlingTankAir StripperDual Media
Filters
Equalizatio
n Tank
Cartridge
Filters (1
micron)
Photo-Cat
Sample Port #1
Acid
Ferric
chloride
ADX or
H2O2 Sodium
Hydroxide
Sample Port #3Sample Port #2 Sample Port #4
Figure 1. Process Flow Diagram
Effluent Tank
and Pump
Lime
Figure 2. Test 0 and Test 1 AOP Performance Decay Curves
y = 2806.5e-0.537x
R² = 0.9904
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
1,
4
-Di
o
x
a
n
e

(p
p
b
)
Power / Flow
(kW/lpm)
Test 0 080116
UV only
1,4-dioxane
Expon. (1,4-dioxane)
y = 2758.8e-0.631x
R² = 0.9149
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
1,
4
-di
o
x
a
n
e
(p
p
b
)
Power / flow
(kW/lpm)
Test 1 080216
UV + FG TiO2
1,4-dioxane
Expon. (1,4-dioxane)
Figure 3. Test 2 and Test 3 AOP Performance Decay Curves
y = 2661.6e-0.641x
R² = 0.9261
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
1,
4
-di
o
x
a
n
e
(p
p
b
)
Power / flow
(kW/lpm)
Test 2 080216
UV + FG TiO2 + 60mg/L ADX
1,4-dioxane
Expon. (1,4-dioxane)
y = 2683.9e-0.829x
R² = 0.999
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
1,
4
-di
o
x
a
n
e
(p
p
b
)
Power / flow
(kW/lpm)
Test 3 080216
UV + FG TiO2 + 100mg/L ADX
1,4-dioxane
Expon. (1,4-dioxane)
Figure 4. Test 4 and Test 6 AOP Performance Decay Curves
y = 2369.6e-0.671x
R² = 0.7926
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
1,
4
-di
o
x
a
n
e
(p
p
b
)
Power / flow
(kW/lpm)
Test 4 080316
UV + 100mg/L ADX
1,4-dioxane
Expon. (1,4-dioxane)
y = 2460.2e-0.631x
R² = 0.9968
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
1,
4
-di
o
x
a
n
e
(p
p
b
)
Power / flow
(kW/lpm)
Test 6 080316
UV + 200mg/L H2O2
1,4-dioxane
Expon. (1,4-dioxane)
Figure 5. Test 5 AOP Performance Decay Curves
Note: Test 5 Run A data point not included for the calculation of the decay curve shown.
Note: Test 5 Run A data point included for the calculation of the decay curve shown.
y = 2597.4e-0.593x
R² = 1
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
1,
4
-di
o
x
a
n
e
(p
p
b
)
Power / flow
(kW/lpm)
Test 5 080316
UV + 150mg/L H2O2
1,4-dioxane
Expon. (1,4-dioxane)
y = 947.49e-1.292x
R² = 0.0743
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
1,
4
-di
o
x
a
n
e
(p
p
b
)
Power / flow
(kW/lpm)
Test 5 080316
UV + 150mg/L H2O2
1,4-dioxane
Expon. (1,4-dioxane)
Figure 6. Test 7 and Test 8 AOP Performance Decay Curves
y = 2321.1e-0.892x
R² = 0.8151
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
1,
4
-di
o
x
a
n
e
(p
p
b
)
Power / flow
(kW/lpm)
Test 7 080316
UV + P25 TiO2 + 150mg/L H2O2
1,4-dioxane
Expon. (1,4-dioxane)
y = 2307.2e-1.018x
R² = 0.9274
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
1,
4
-di
o
x
a
n
e
(p
p
b
)
Power / flow
(kW/lpm)
Test 8 080316
UV + P25 TiO2 + 100mg/L ADX
1,4-dioxane
Expon. (1,4-dioxane)
APPENDIX A
Curriculum Vitae – John Perella
PERSONNEL RESUME
1
JOHN F PERELLA
PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
Mr. Perella has 17 years of experience in the environmental profession.
Currently, his primary roles include serving as senior technical engineer
and to provide technical support/review for environmental remediation
projects. Mr. Perella has been involved in all phases of groundwater
and soil remediation projects including remedial action planning and
strategic development, treatment process development, detailed
engineering design, plant construction, plant operations, and site
closures. Mr. Perella has developed expertise in designing,
constructing, and operating aboveground treatment systems associated
with 1,4-dioxane and in-situ thermal remediation projects. Remediation
experience also includes the design and implementation of in-situ
remediation techniques including air sparging, soil vapor extraction, in-
situ thermal heating, and enhancement of subsurface conditions to
promote biological degradation of contaminants (for example, enhanced
reductive dechlorination for chlorinated organic compounds).
Mr. Perella has been a key presenter for the Arcadis Technical
Knowledge and Innovation (TKI) Knowledge Transfer Series for
Engineered Treatment Systems presenting specifically on Advance
Oxidation Processes (AOPs) and the treatment of 1,4-dioxane.
Project Experience
In-Situ Thermal Heating and Groundwater Pump and Treat
Systems – Chlorinated Solvent Site Tampa, Florida
Engineer of Record for chlorinated solvent site, responsible for design,
construction management, operations and maintenance (O&M)
management, and training of O&M personnel for a 50 gpm surficial, 550
gpm Floridan aquifer pump-and-treat system and 900 scfm / 30 gpm
dual phase extraction (DPE) system utilizing 3-phase electric resistive
heating (ERH) for the treatment of source areas. ERH system installed
in phases in two source areas both with elevated concentrations of
chlorinated solvents and 1,4-dioxane. ERH systems utilized
approximately 30 electrodes in each source area installed approximately
2 feet from the base of the clay confining layer. The aboveground
treatment system utilized air stripping, advanced oxidation process
(AOP) utilizing the Calgon Carbon RayOx system with hydrogen
peroxide injection, and carbon adsorption to remove contaminates from
the water and vapor.
EDUCATION
BS, Environmental Engineer, North
Carolina State University at Raleigh,
1997
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
Total – 17 years
With ARCADIS – 10 years
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS
Professional Engineer - FL
CORE SKILLS
1.Engineered TreatmentSystems2.Remediation Engineering3.Operations and Maintenance4.Site Assessment
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
National Society of Professional
Engineers (NSPE)
CERTIFICATIONS
OSHA 40 hour HAZWOPER
OSHA 8 hour Site Supervisor
PERSONNEL RESUME - John F Perella
Project Experience Continued
2
Groundwater Pump and Treat System – Chlorinated Solvent Site Bradenton, Florida
Senior Process Engineer for chlorinated solvent site, responsible for design, construction
oversight and operation, maintenance and management for the Interim Remedial Action (IRA)
system. Groundwater contaminated with chlorinated solvents and 1,4-dioxane. Extraction
system consists of 10 groundwater extraction wells producing 30 gpm. Treatment system
consists of iron removal pretreatment, an advance oxidation process (AOP) utilizing the
Purifics ES Photo-Cat and granular activated carbon (GAC) for effluent polishing. Treated
effluent discharged to the local POTW. Responsible for Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and
preliminary full scale system design, consisting of over 70 extraction wells producing
approximately 200 gpm. Full scale treatment system consists of iron and aluminium removal
pretreatment, media and ultra-filtration, AOP treatment, GAC polishing, reverse osmosis for a
portion of the treated effluent to be discharged to offsite infiltration galleries, onsite injection of
treated effluent and discharge of effluent to offsite POTW.
Water Treatment System for Thermal Project – Chlorinated Solvent
Site St. Petersburg, Florida
Senior Process Engineer for the design and implementation of an 80 gallon per minute
groundwater treatment system to support an in-situ thermal desorption remediation
project to reduce chlorinated solvents and 1,4-dioxane. Responsibilities included
coordination of overall project activities including local permitting and general contractor
support of the project and managing the water system design team that included process,
electrical, mechanical, and structural aspects. The system incorporates a synthetic media
system as the primary water treatment method with other processes designed to reduce
iron. The system has been operating successfully since August 2012 and is operating as
designed.
Interim Chlorinated Plume and 1,4-Dioxane System– Chlorinated
Solvent Site St. Petersburg, Florida
Senior Process Engineer for an interim water treatment system that included advanced oxidation
process as the primary treatment technique to remove chlorinated compounds and 1,4-dioxane.
The system utilized HiPOx APT AOP system for treatment of 1,4-dioxane. The system also included
various process steps to remove iron. The 32 gallon per minute treatment system has been
operating successfully for over four years.
Advanced Oxidation Pilot Test– Chlorinated Solvent Site St. Petersburg, Florida
Senior Process Engineer for the design and implementation of a 32 gallon per minute pilot
groundwater extraction and treatment system. The pilot system includes iron removal
processes and a side-by-side evaluation of two advanced oxidation process units. The site is
impacted with chlorinated volatile organic compounds and 1,4-dioxane. The system has been
operating consistently with > 90 percent uptime and has achieved the treatment goals.
Groundwater Pump and Treat System – Chlorinated Solvent Site Sarasota, Florida
Senior Process Engineer for chlorinated solvent site, responsible for the design, construction
oversight and groundwater treatment system operation and maintenance management for the
groundwater extraction and treatment system. Groundwater contaminated with chlorinated
solvents, 1,4-dioxane and arsenic. System utilizes a 15-foot-deep and 140-foot-long
groundwater extraction trench designed to limit the movement of contaminated groundwater
PERSONNEL RESUME - John F Perella

Project Experience Continued
3
offsite. The construction of the extraction trench utilized a single pass horizontal trencher. The
horizontal trencher eliminated the need for any dewatering during the construction of the
extraction trench. The treatment system consists of an advanced oxidation process utilizing
the Calgon Ray/Ox system with hydrogen peroxide injection, air stripping, and activated
alumina adsorption. System flow rate is approximately 40 gpm and treated groundwater is
discharged onsite utilizing approximately 600 feet of infiltration gallery, during high water
events excess water is discharge to NPDES permitted surface water outfall.
Groundwater Pump and Treat and Air Sparge and Soil Vapor Extraction Systems – Chlorinated Solvent Site Orlando, Florida
Engineer of Record for chlorinated solvent site, responsible for the design, construction
oversight and groundwater treatment system operation and maintenance management for
the groundwater extraction and treatment system and air sparge and soil vapor extraction
(AS/SVE) system. Groundwater contaminated with chlorinated solvents. Groundwater
extraction system consists of 7 extraction wells producing approximately 30 gpm.
Treatment of groundwater consists of air stripping and pH adjustment with discharge of
treated water to the POTW. AS/SVE system consists of 40 AS wells and 5 SVE trenches.
AS/SVE system is designed as a barrier wall system to protect surface water from
groundwater daylighting.
Groundwater Pump and Treat Systems – Chlorinated Solvent Site Jacksonville, Florida
Engineer of Record for chlorinated solvent site, responsible for the design, construction oversight and groundwater treatment system operation and maintenance management for the groundwater extraction and treatment system. Groundwater contaminated with chlorinated solvents. Groundwater extraction system consists of 6 extraction wells producing approximately 30 gpm. Treatment of groundwater consists of air stripping utilizing a turbo stripper fluidized bed air stripper with discharge of treated water to the POTW.
Groundwater Pump and Treat Systems – Explosives Site Milan, Tennessee
Senior Process Engineer for the Milan Army Ammunitions Plant, responsible for the
operations and maintenance management of two groundwater pump and treat systems
and design and implementation of extraction and conveyance systems expansion. Both
treatment systems operate at approximately 1200 gpm each. Responsible for the design
and implementation of 6 new extraction wells and approximately 5-miles of HDPE
pipeline. Average flow rate for extraction wells is approximately 200 gpm each.
Treatment process consists of iron and manganese removal pretreatment by pH
adjustment and sand filtration and granular activated carbon (GAC) for the removal of
explosives. Treated effluent is discharged to surface water via NPDES permit.
In-Situ Thermal Heating – Chlorinated Solvent Site Orlando, Florida
Engineer of Record for chlorinated solvent site, responsible for design, construction
management, operations and maintenance (O&M) management, and training of O&M
personnel for a 1200 scfm / 30 gpm multi-phase extraction (MPE) system utilizing 3-phase
electric resistive heating (ERH) for the treatment of source area. ERH system utilized 93
electrodes and 44 extraction wells in the source area. The aboveground treatment
system utilized air stripping and Liquid Phase granular activated carbon (GAC) for
treatment of liquids, while vapors were treated through a regenerative Vapor Phase GAC
system.

PERSONNEL RESUME - John F Perella
Project Experience Continued
4
Groundwater Pump and Treat System – Chloride Site Odessa, Texas
Senior Process Engineer for chloride site, responsible for design for the modification to an existing groundwater treatment system. Modifications include the installation of additional extraction and injection wells to cover an area greater than 4 miles. Treatment system includes electro-dialysis reversal (EDR) and reverse osmosis for the removal of chlorides. Treated water will be returned to the aquifer as to limit impacts of remediation on the aquifer. Brine concentrate is discharged to a deep aquifer injection well. Total system flow rate approximately 300 gpm.
Free Product Recovery – Petroleum Terminal Nassau, Bahamas
Project Engineer for petroleum terminal, responsible for design, construction oversight
and groundwater treatment system operation and maintenance management for a free
product recovery system. Recovery system consists of 5 recovery wells located in a
petroleum storage tank farm. Recovered free product is pumped to an onsite holding tank
and removed from the site by an asphalt manufacturer at no cost to the client.
Approximately 20,000 gallons of free product has been removed since the installation of
the recovery system.
Petroleum Impacted Soils Excavation – Petroleum Site Ocklawaha, Florida
Project Engineer for petroleum site, conducted site assessment and remediation activities under the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) petroleum preapproval program. Responsibilities included design and construction oversight of a 5,300-ton petroleum-contaminated soil excavation.
Groundwater Pump and Treat, AS/SVE, Ex-Situ Soil Remediation and Excavation – Solvent Site Lakeland, Florida
Project Engineer for solvent site, responsible for groundwater and soil remediation system operations and maintenance management for a 20 gpm surficial aquifer pump and treat system as well as an AS/SVE system with 300 scfm and 500 scfm flow rates, respectively. Responsible for design and construction oversight of a 4,000 cubic yard ex-situ biopile construction project and design and construction oversight of a 5,000 cubic yard contaminated soil excavation. The excavation required the installation of approximately 200 feet of sheet piling. Dewatering requirement for the excavation was approximately 30 gpm of contaminated groundwater, which was treated with the onsite treatment system and discharged to the existing infiltration galleries.
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption – Pesticide Site Tampa, Florida
Project Engineer for pesticide site, responsible for design and implementation of a cooling
water pumping system during operations of a low-temperature thermal desorption unit for
soil remediation.
Olga Water Treatment Plant (WTP) ImprovementsFort Myers, Florida
Project Engineer, evaluated Miex® DOC resin, ferric sulfate, and aluminium sulfate for
removal of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and color in surface water utilized by the
WTP. Determined theoretical softening requirements utilizing both lime and soda ash as
well as evaluating the possible effects of organics coagulation prior to softening. Authored
applicable portions of the basis of design report.
PERSONNEL RESUME - John F Perella
Project Experience Continued
5
Boca Ceiga Pump Station Improvements St. Petersburg, Florida
Project Engineer, designed pump station upgrades for wastewater collection system in
which force main pressures were to increase, in some cases by 100 percent. Sized
pumps, designed piping and valve configurations, and developed construction plans for
nine county-owned and two privately owned pump stations. Design flow rates for the
pump stations ranged from 125 gpm to 1,000 gpm.
Selected Publications
Bourke M., T.L. Champlin, J. Perella, C. Topham, and J. Blattman. 2002. “Use of a
Magnetic Ion Exchange Resin to Improve DBP Precursor Removal and Reduce
Coagulant Usage at Lee County’s Olga WTP.” In Proceedings to the 2002 Florida
Section of the American Water Works Association Annual Conference. Tarpon Springs,
Florida.
APPENDIX B
Field Data
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Analytical Reports
Analytical Results Omitted

Arcadis U.S., Inc.
3109 W. Dr. M. L. King Jr Boulevard
Suite 350
Tampa, Florida 33637
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]

www.arcadis.com