Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it's official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

information

We are making some changes to CLU-IN. If you have any feedback or questions, please contact us.

Share |
Connect | Archived Internet Seminars and Podcasts News Feeds (RSS) TechDirect and Newsletters

Green Remediation Focus

Havertown PCP Site

Havertown, Pennsylvania

Superfund NPL

Image Gallery

image
RSE Recommendations


Cleanup Objectives: Remediate shallow ground water containing metals, chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs), benzene, and dioxins/furans

Green Remediation Strategy: Conducted remediation system evaluation (RSE) of an operating P&T system spanning a 12-acre treatment area and employing:

  • Four recovery wells with one collection trench
  • An ex situ pre-treatment system to break oil-water emulsion, remove metals, and remove suspended solids in extracted ground water
  • A primary treatment system employing three 30-kW ultraviolet/oxidation (UV/Ox) lamps, a peroxide destruction unit, and two granular activated carbon units to collectively destroy or remove organic contaminants

Results:

  • Took two UV/Ox lamps offline, based on RSE results indicating that contaminant parameters had changed since the time of P&T startup
  • Reduced electricity consumption by at least 168,000 kWh per year, due to turning off the two UV/Ox lamps
  • Reduced related air emissions by approximately 105 tons of CO2, 280 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and 1,500 pounds of sulfur oxides each year, based on eGRID (version 1.1 for Pennsylvania)
  • Reduced the smaller but additional offsite footprints attributable to avoided cooling water and fuel-harvesting resources needed for electricity generation and the intermediate power loss on the electric transmission grid
  • Reduced annual operating costs by $32,000, primarily due to lower electricity consumption
  • Gained a potential life cycle cost savings estimated at $515,000-$960,000, based on 30 years of ground-water treatment operations
  • Continues to meet cleanup criteria for ground water

Property End Use: Undetermined

Point of Contact: Jill Lowe, U.S. EPA Region 3

Update: December 2009

Download a Formatted PDF Version of Full ProfileAdobe PDF Logo