EPA/540/AR-93/501
                                   July 1993
   perox-pure™ Chemical
   Oxidation Technology

 Peroxidation Systems,  Inc.

Applications Analysis Report
        Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
        Office of Research and Development
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
           Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
                            Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
                                        Notice
    The information hi this document has been prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program under Contract No. 68-CO-0047.
This document has been subjected to EPA peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for
publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
an endorsement or recommendation for use.

-------
                                        Foreword
    The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program was authorized in the 1986
Superfund Amendments  and Reauthorization  Act.   The  program is a joint  effort between the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Research and Development and Office  of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response.  The purpose of the program is to assist the development  of
innovative hazardous waste treatment technologies, especially those that offer permanent remedies for
contamination commonly found at Superfund and other hazardous waste sites.  The SITE program
evaluates new treatment methods through technology demonstrations designed to provide engineering
and cost data for selected technologies.

    A field demonstration was conducted under the SITE program to evaluate the perox-pure™ chemical
oxidation technology's ability to treat groundwater contaminated with volatile organic compounds. The
technology  demonstration took place at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory site in Tracy,
California.  The demonstration effort was directed to obtain information on the performance and cost
of  the technology and to  assess its  use at  this and  other  uncontrolled hazardous  waste sites.
Documentation consists of two reports:  (1) a Technology  Evaluation Report, which  describes field
activities and laboratory results, and (2) this Applications Analysis Report, which interprets the data and
discusses the potential applicability of the technology.

    A limited number of copies of tlhis report will be available at no charge from EPA's Center for
Environmental Research Information, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio  45268.
Requests should include the EPA document number found on the report's cover. When the limited
supply is exhausted, additional copies can be purchased from the National Technical Information Service,
Ravensworth Building, Springfield, Virginia 22161, (703) 487-4600. Reference copies will be available
at EPA libraries in the Hazardous Waste Collection.
                                                     E. Timothy Oppelt, Director

                                                     Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
                                             111

-------
                                         Abstract
    This report evaluates the perox-pure™ chemical oxidation technology's ability to remove volatile
 organic compounds (VOC) and other organic contaminants present in liquid wastes. This report also
 presents economic data from the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)  demonstration
 and three case studies.

    The perox-pure™ chemical oxidation technology was developed by Peroxidation Systems, Inc. (PSI),
 to destroy dissolved organic contaminants in water. The technology uses ultraviolet (UV) radiation and
 hydrogen peroxide to oxidize organic compounds present in water at parts per million levels or less.
 This treatment technology produces no air emissions and generates no sludge or spent media that
 require further processing, handling, or disposal.  Ideally, the end products are water, carbon dioxide,
 halides (for example, chloride), and in some cases, organic acids. The technology uses medium-pressure,
 mercury-vapor lamps to generate UV radiation. The principal oxidants in the system, hydroxyl radicals,
 are produced by direct photolysis of hydrogen peroxide at UV wavelengths.

    The perox-pure™  chemical oxidation technology was demonstrated under the SITE program at
 Lawrence Livermore  National Laboratory Site 300 in Tracy,  California.  Over  a  3-week period in
 September 1992, about 40,000 gallons of VOC-contaminated groundwater was treated in the perox-
 pure'* system.  For the SITE demonstration, the perox-pure™ system achieved trichloroethene (TCE)
 and tetrachloroethene (PCE) average removal efficiencies of about 99.7 and 97.1 percent, respectively.
 In general, the perox-pure™  system  produced an  effluent  that contained (1)  TCE, PCE,  and
 1,1-dichloroethane (DCA) below detection limits and (2) chloroform and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA)
 slightly above detection limits. The system also achieved chloroform, DCA, and TCA average removal
 efficiencies of 93.1, 98.3, and 81.8 percent, respectively. The treatment system effluent met California
 drinking water action  levels and federal drinking water maximum contaminant levels for TCE, PCE,
 chloroform, DCA, and TCA at the 95 percent confidence level.

    The results from  three case studies are also summarized in this report.  All three  case studies
 represent full-scale, currently operating commercial installations  of perox-pure™ chemical oxidation
 systems. The  contaminants of concern in these case studies include acetone, isopropyl alcohol (IPA),
 TCE, and pentachlorophenol (PCP).  In the first case study, the perox-pure™ system treated industrial
 wastewater containing 20 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of acetone and IPA; the effluent met the discharge
 limit of 0.5 mg/L for each compound. In the second case study, the perox-pure™ system treated
 groundwater that was  used as a municipal drinking water source.  The groundwater initially contained
 150 micrograms per liter (pg/L) of TCE. After treatment, the effluent TCE level was  0.5 /tg/L, well
 below the TCE drinking water standard of 5 /ig/L. In the third case study, the perox-pure™ system
 treated groundwater at a chemical manufacturing facility.  The groundwater contained 15  mg/L of PCP;
 after treatment the effluent achieved the target effluent PCP level of 0.1 mg/L.

   Potential sites for applying this technology include Superfund and other hazardous waste sites where
groundwater or other liquid wastes are contaminated with organic compounds. Economic data indicate
that groundwater remediation costs for  a 50-gallon per minute perox-pure™ system could range from
about $7 to $11 per 1,000 gallons, depending on contaminated groundwater characteristics.  Of these,
perox-pure™ system  direct treatment costs could range from about $3 to $5 per 1,000 gallons.
                                             IV

-------
                                        Contents
Notice 	  ii
Foreword	Jii
Abstract	 iv
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols  :	 ix
Conversion Factors	 xi
Acknowledgements	xii

1.  Executive Summary 	  1
        1.1     Introduction 	  1
        1.2     Overview of the SITE Demonstration	  1
        1.3     Results from the SITE Demonstration	  2
        1.4     Results from Case Studies	  3
        1.5     Waste Applicability	  3
        1.6     Economics  	  3

2.  Introduction	  5
        2.1     Purpose, History, and Goals of the SITE Program  	5
        2.2     Documentation of the SITE Demonstration Results  	  6
        2.3     Purpose of the Applications Analysis Report  	  6
        2.4     Technology Description	6
               2.4.1   Treatment Technology  	  7
               2.4.2   System Components and Function	  8
               2.4.3   Innovative Features of the Technology	  8
        2.5     Key Contacts	9

3.  Technology Applications Analysis 	  11
        3.1     Effectiveness of the perox-pure™ Technology  	  11
               3.1.1   SITE Demonstration Results	  11
               3.1.2   Results of Other Case Studies	  12
        3.2     Factors Influencing Performance  	  13
               3.2.1   Influent Characteristics	  13
               3.2.2   Operating Parameters '	  13
               3.2.3   Maintenance Requirements	  14
        3.3     Site Characteristics  	  14
               3.3.1   Support Systems	  14
               3.3.2   Site Area and Preparation	  15
               3.3.3   Site Access	'	  15
               3.3.4   Climate  	  15
               3.3.5   Utilities  	  15
               3.3.6   Services and Supplies 	  15
        3.4    Material Handling Requirements	  15
               3.4.1   Pretreatment Materials	  16
               3.4.2   Treated Water 	  16
        3.5    Personnel Requirements  	  16
        3.6    Potential Community Exposures	  16

-------
                                Contents  (continued)

        3.7     Potential Regulatory Requirements  	17
                3.7.1   Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
                       and Liability Act	   17
                3.7.2   Resource Conservation  and Recovery Act  	   17
                3.7.3   Clean Water Act	   19
                3.7.4   Safe Drinking Water Act	   19
                3.7.5   Toxic Substances Control Act  	   19
                3.7.6   Mixed Waste Regulations   	   19
                3.7.7   Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act	   19
                3.7.8   Occupational Safety and Health Act	   20

4.  Economic Analysis	   21
        4.1     Basis of Economic Analysis	   21
        4.2     Cost Categories	   24
                4.2.1   Site Preparation Costs	   25
                4.2.2   Permitting and Regulatory Requirements Costs  	   25
                4.2.3   Capital Equipment Costs	   25
                4.2.4   Startup Costs  	   27
                4.2.5   Labor Costs	   27
                4.2.6   Consumables and Supplies Costs	   27
                4.2.7   Utilities Costs	   28
                4.2.8   Effluent Treatment and Disposal Costs 	   29
                4.2.9   Residuals and Waste Shipping and Handling Costs	   29
                4.2.10   Analytical Services Costs	   29
                4.2.11   Maintenance and Modifications Costs  	   29
                4.2.12   Demobilization Costs 	   30

5.  References	   31

Appendix A - Vendor Claims for the Technology	33
        A.1     Introduction  	   33
        A.2     Description of the perox-pure™ System	   33
        A.3     perox-pure™ Systems	   34
        A.4     Design Improvements  	   34
        A.5     Pretreatment	   36
        A.6     perox-pure™ Applications	   36
        A.7    Advantages over Carbon Adsorption and Air Stripping Technologies	   36
        A.8     Other Advantages	   38
        A.9     Technology Combinations  	   38

Appendix B - SITE Demonstration Results	39
        B.I     Site  Description	   39
        B.2     Site  Contamination Characteristics	   39
        B.3     Review of SITE Demonstration	   41
                B.3.1   Site Preparation  	   41
               B.3.2   Technology Demonstration	   42
               B.3.3   Site Demobilization	   43
        B.4    Experimental Design	43
               B.4.1   Testing Approach	   44
               B.4.2   Sampling and Analytical Procedures	   44
        B.5    Review of Treatment Results	   45
               B.5.1   Summary of the Results for Critical Parameters	   45
               B.5.2   Summary of Results for  Noncritical Parameters	   56
        B.6    Conclusions	  58
        B.7    References 	   58
                                            VI

-------
                               Contents (continued)

Appendix C - Case Studies	59
        C.1     Wastewater Treatment System, Florida	  59
               C.I.I   Site Conditions	    59
               C.1.2   System Performance	  59
               C.1.3   Costs	  59
        C.2     Municipal Drinking Water System, Arizona  	  60
               C.2.1   Site Conditions	    60
               C.2.2   System Performance	  60
               C.2.3   Costs 	  60
        C.3     Chemical Manufacturing Company, Washington	  60
               C.3.1   Site Conditions	    60
               C.3.2   System Performance	  60
               C.3.3   Costs 	  61
                                            vu

-------
                                        Figures


2-1     perox-pure™ Chemical Oxidation Treatment System  	9
A-l     Isometric Diagram of perox-pure™ Unit  	   35
B-l     LLNL Site Location	40
B-2     perox-pure™ Chemical Oxidation Treatment System Sampling Locations  	47
B-3     Comparison of VOC Concentrations at Different Influent pH Levels	   49
B-4     Comparison of VOC Concentrations at Different Hydrogen Peroxide Levels  	   50
B-5     Comparison of VOC Concentrations at Different Flow Rates and Hydrogen
        Peroxide Levels	51
B-6     Comparison of VOC Concentrations in Spiked and Unspiked Groundwater	   52
B-7     VOC Removal Efficiencies in Reproducibility Runs	   53
B-8     Comparison of 95 Percent UCLs for Effluent VOC Concentrations with Target Levels
        in Reproducibility Runs	54
B-9     VOC Removal Efficiencies in Quartz Tube Cleaner Runs	   55
B-10    Carbon Concentrations in Reproducibility Runs  	   57



                                        Tables

2-1     Comparison of Technologies for Treating VOCs in Water	   10
3-1     Regulations Summary	   18
4-1     Costs Associated with the perox-pure™ Technology - Case 1 	   22
4-2     Costs Associated with the perox-pure™ Technology - Case 2 	   23
A-l     Oxidation Potential of Oxidants  	   34
A-2     Partial List of perox-pure™ Technology Applications	   37
B-l     Experimental Matrix for perox-pure™ Technology Demonstration 	   45
B-2     Target Levels for VOCs  in Effluent  Samples	   46
B-3     Analytical and Measurement Methods 	   48
                                           vm

-------
                    Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols
AAR      Applications Analysis Report
ACL      Alternate concentration limit
AEA      Atomic Energy Act
AOX      Adsorbable organic halide
ARAR     Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
BTEX     Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene
BTX      Benzene, toluene, and xylene
CC14       Carbon tetrachloride
CDEP     Department of Environmental Protection, State of Connecticut
CERCLA  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR      Code of Federal Regulations
CWA      Clean Water Act
DCA      1,1-dichloroethane
1,1-DCE   1,1-dichloroethene
1,2-DCE   1,2-dichloroethene
DIMP     Diisopropyl methylphosphonate
DOE      U.S. Department of Energy
EPA      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FIFRA     Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
FS         Feasibility study
°F         Degree Fahrenheit
GC        Gas chromatography
gpd        Gallons per day
gpm       Gallons per minute
GSA      General Services Area
H2O2      Hydrogen peroxide
hv         Ultraviolet radiation
IPA       Isopropyl alcohol
kW        Kilowatt
kWh      Kilowatt-hour
LLNL     Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
MCL      Maximum contaminant level
MeCl      Methylene chloride
MEK      Methyl ethyl ketone
/xg/L      Micrograms per liter
mg/L      Milligrams per liter
MS        Mass spectrometry
NPDES    National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OH>      Hydroxyl radical
O&M     Operation and maintenance
ORD      Office of Research and Development
OSHA     Occupational Safety and Health Act
OSWER   Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PAH      Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB      Polychlorinated biphenyl
                                            IX

-------
            Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Symbols (continued)

PCE       Tetrachloroethene
PCP       PentacHorophenol
POC       Purgeable organic carbon
POTW     Publicly-owned treatment works
PPE       Personal protective equipment
ppm       Parts per million
PSI        Peroxidation Systems, Inc.
QA/QC    Quality assurance/quality control
RI         Remedial investigation
RCRA     Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SARA     Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SDWA     Safe Drinking Water Act
SITE       Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
SVOC     Semivolatile organic compound
TC        Total carbon
TCA       1,1,1-trichloroethane
TCE       Trichloroethene
TER       Technology Evaluation Report
TIC       Tentatively identified compound
TOC       Total organic carbon
TOX       Total organic halide
TSCA     Toxic Substances Control Act
UCL       Upper confidence limit  .
UV        Ultraviolet
VOC       Volatile organic compound

-------
                              Conversion Factors
                     To Convert From      To
                                          Multiply By
Length:
Area:
Volume:
inch
foot
mile
square foot
acre
gallon
cubic foot
centimeter
meter
kilometer
square meter
square meter
liter
cubic meter
2.54
0.305
1.61
0.0929
4,047
3.78
0.0283
Mass:
pound
kilogram
0.454
Energy:
kilowatt-hour
megajoule
3.60
Power:
kilowatt
horsepower
                                                                1.34
Temperature:
("Fahrenheit - 32)      "Celsius
                     0.556
                                         XI

-------
                                 Acknowledgements
    This  report was prepared under the direction and coordination of Ms.  Norma Lewis, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Project
Manager and Emerging Technology Section Chief in the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
(RREL), Cincinnati, Ohio. Contributors and reviewers for this report were Messrs. Carl Chen, Gordon
Evans, John Ireland, and Ron Turner of EPA RREL, Cincinnati, Ohio; Mr. Chris Giggy of Peroxidation
Systems, Inc., Tucson, Arizona; Ms. Lida Tan of EPA Region IX, San Francisco, California; Mr. Kai
Steffens of PROBIOTEC, Duren,  Germany; Mr.  Shyam Shukla of Lawrence  Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, California; and Mr. Geoffrey Germann of Engineering-Science, Inc.,
Fairfax; Virginia.

    This report was prepared for EPA's SITE program by Dr. Kirankumar Topudurti, Mr. Michael
Keefe, Mr. Patrick Wooliever, Mr. Jeffrey  Swano, and Ms. Carla Buriks of PRC Environmental
Management, Inc.  (PRC).  Special acknowledgement is given to Mr. John Greci of LLNL for his
invaluable support during the demonstration  and to Ms. Carol Adams, Ms. Korreen Ball, Ms. Regina
Bergner, and Mr. Tobin Yager of PRC for their editorial, graphic, and production assistance during the
preparation of this report.
                                           Xll

-------
                                                   Section  1
                                            Executive Summary
1.1 Introduction

   The  perox-pure™   chemical  oxidation  technology,
developed by Peroxidation Systems, Inc. (PSI), was evaluated
under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund
Innovative Technology  Evaluation (SITE)  program.  The
perox-pure™ technology demonstration was conducted at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Site 300
in Tracy, California, over a 3-week period in September
1992.

   The  perox-pure™  chemical  oxidation  technology is
designed to destroy dissolved organic contaminants in water.
The technology uses ultraviolet (UV) radiation and hydrogen
peroxide to oxidize organic compounds present in water at
parts per million levels or less.  This treatment technology
produces no air emissions and generates no sludge or spent
media that require further processing, handling, or disposal.
Ideally, end products are water, carbon dioxide, halides (for
example, chloride), and in some cases,, organic acids.  The
technology uses medium-pressure, mercury-vapor lamps to
generate UV radiation.  The principal oxidants in the system,
hydroxyl radicals,  are  produced  by direct photolysis of
hydrogen peroxide at UV wavelengths.

   The perox-pure™ chemical oxidation treatment  system
(Model SSB-30) used for the SITE technology demonstration
was assembled  from the following portable, skid-mounted
components: a chemical oxidation unit, a hydrogen peroxide
feed module, an acid feed module, a base feed module, a
UV lamp drive, and a control panel. The oxidation unit has
six reactors in series with one 5-kilowatt UV lamp in each
reactor; the unit has a total volume of  15 gallons.  The UV
lamp is mounted inside a UV-transmissive quartz tube in the
center of each reactor so that water flows through the space
between the reactor walls and the quartz tube.  Circular
wipers are mounted on  the  quartz tubes to periodically
remove any solids that have accumulated on the tubes.

    The perox-pure™ system requires little attention during
operation and can be operated and monitored remotely, if
needed. Remotely monitored systems  can be connected to
devices that automatically dial  a telephone  to  notify
responsible parties at remote locations of alarm conditions.
Remotely operated and monitored systems are hard-wired
into centrally located control panels or computers through
programmable logic controllers.

   The technology demonstration had the following primary
objectives:   (1) determine the ability of  the  perox-pure™
system to remove volatile organic compounds (VOC) from
groundwater at the LLNL site under  different operating
conditions,  (2) determine whether treated groundwater met
applicable   disposal  requirements  at  the  95  percent
confidence  level,  and (3) gather information necessary to
estimate treatment costs, including process chemical dosages
and utility requirements.  The secondary  objective for the
technology  demonstration was to obtain information on the
presence and types of by-products formed during treatment.

   The  purpose  of this report  is to present information
from the SITE demonstration and several case studies that
will be useful for implementing the perox-pure™ chemical
oxidation  technology  at  Superfund  and  Resource
Conservation  and Recovery  Act hazardous  waste sites.
Section 2  presents  an overview of the SITE program,
describes the perox-pure™ technology, and lists key contacts.
Section 3 discusses information relevant to the technology's
application,  including pretreatment  and  posttreatment
requirements, site characteristics, operating and maintenance
requirements, potential community exposures, and potentially
applicable environmental regulations. Section 4 summarizes
the costs associated  with  implementing the  technology.
Section 5  includes  a list  of references.   Appendices A
through C  include the vendor claims for the technology, a
summary of the SITE demonstration results, and summaries
of three case studies, respectively.

1.2 Overview of the SITE Demonstration

    Shallow groundwater at the LLNL site was selected as
the waste stream for evaluating  the perox-pure™ chemical
oxidation technology. About 40,000 gallons of groundwater
contaminated with   VOCs   was  treated   during   the
demonstration.  The  principal groundwater contaminants
were trichloroethene (TCE) and tetrachloroethene (PCE),

-------
which were present at concentrations of about 1,000 and 100
micrograms per liter (/xg/L), respectively. Groundwater was
pumped from two wells into a 7,500-gallon bladder tank to
minimize variability in influent characteristics.  In addition,
cartridge filters were  used to remove suspended solids
greater than  3 micrometers in size from the groundwater
before it entered the tank. Treated groundwater was stored
in two 20,000-gallon steel tanks before being discharged.

    The technology demonstration was conducted hi three
phases.   Phase  1 consisted of eight  runs  using  raw
groundwater, Phase 2 consisted of four runs using  spiked
groundwater, and Phase 3 consisted of two runs using spiked
groundwater  to  evaluate the effectiveness  of quartz tube
cleaning. These phases are described below.

    The principal operating parameters for the perox-pure™
system, hydrogen peroxide dose, influent pH, and flow rate
(which determines the hydraulic retention time), were varied
during Phase 1 to observe treatment system  performance
under  different operating conditions.  Preferred operating
conditions, those under which the concentrations of spiked
groundwater  effluent  VOCs would be reduced to  below
target levels,  were then determined for the system.

    Phase 2 involved spiked groundwater and reproducibility
tests. Groundwater was spiked with about 200 to 300 jig/L
each of chloroform; 1,1-dichloroethane (DCA); and 1,1,1-
trichloroethane (TCA).  These  compounds were chosen
because they are difficult to oxidize and because they were
not present in the groundwater at high concentrations. This
phase was also designed to evaluate the reproducibility of
treatment system performance at the preferred operating
conditions determined in Phase 1.

    During Phase 3, the effectiveness of quartz tube wipers
was evaluated by performing  two  runs  using  spiked
groundwater  and scaled and clean quartz tubes.

    During the demonstration, samples were collected at
several locations, including the treatment system influent;
effluent from Reactors 1,2, and 3;  and the treatment system
effluent. Samples were  analyzed for VOCs, semivolatile
organic compounds, total  organic carbon  (TOC), total
carbon, purgeable organic carbon (POC), total organic
halides (TOX), adsorbable organic halides (AOX), metals,
pH, alkalinity, turbidity, temperature, specific conductance,
hydrogen peroxide residual, and hardness, as applicable.  In
addition, samples of influent to Reactor 1 and treatment
system effluent were collected and analyzed for acute toxicity
to  freshwater   organisms.     In   the  bioassay  tests,
Ceriodaphnia  ditbia  (water fleas)  and  Pimephales
promelas  (fathead  minnows) were  used  as the test
organisms.  Hydrogen peroxide, acid, and base solutions
were also sampled and analyzed to verify concentrations.
1.3 Results from the SITE Demonstration

    For  the spiked  groundwater,  PSI  determined  the
following preferred operating  conditions:    (1)  influent
hydrogen peroxide level of 40 milligrams per liter (mg/L);
(2) hydrogen peroxide level of 25 mg/L in  the influent to
Reactors 2 through 6; (3) an influent pH of 5.0; and (4) a
flow  rate  of  10 gallons per minute (gpm).   At these
conditions, the  effluent TCE, PCE, and DCA levels were
generally below  detection  limit (5 /ig/L)  and  effluent
chloroform and TCA levels ranged from 15 to 30 /
-------
1.4 Results from Case Studies
1.5 Waste Applicability
    Information    on   the   perox-pure™   technology's
performance  at three facilities was evaluated to provide
additional performance data.   The  three case  studies
represent   full-scale,   currently  operating  commercial
installations of perox-pure™ systems.  The contaminants of
concern in these case studies include acetone,  isopropyl
alcohol (IPA), TCE, and pentachlorophenol (PCP).  The
case studies are briefly summarized below.

    The first case study involves wastewater treatment at the
Kennedy Space Center in Florida. At this facility, a liquid-
phase carbon adsorption system had originally been installed
to treat wastewater containing acetone and IPA at levels of
20 mg/L.  The treatment facility discharge requirement for
both acetone and IPA is 0.5 mg/L.  Because the  carbon
adsorption system did not achieve the discharge requirement,
the perox-pure™ chemical oxidation technology was selected
to replace the carbon adsorption system. At this facility, the
perox-pure™ system initially treated wastewater in batches of
about 5,000 gallons.  Later, the system was  converted to a
flow-through mode. Currently, the system treats wastewater
at a flow rate of 5 gpm and produces an effluent that meets
the discharge standard.

    The second case  study involves treating groundwater
used as a  municipal drinking water source in Arizona.  In
1989, a municipal drinking water well in Arizona was found
to contain 50 to 400 |tg/L of TCE.  The well, capable of
producing 2,000 gpm, was taken out of service wHle several
treatment options  were evaluated.   Because the  well is
located on a city lot in the middle of a large residential area,
the city preferred using a low-visibility, quiet treatment
method   that  could  consistently   destroy   TCE   to
concentrations below the drinking water standard of 5 /tg/L.
Given these  requirements, chemical  oxidation using the
perox-pure™  system was selected.  Currently, the  system
treats groundwater at  a flow rate of 135 gpm and produces
treated groundwater containing only 0.5 /ig/L of TCE.

    The third case study deals with treatment of PCP-
contaminated groundwater at a  chemical  manufacturing
company in Washington. Groundwater at the site was found
to contain about 15 mg/L of PCP.  In 1988, PSI installed a
perox-pure™  system  at  the site  under a Full  Service
Agreement.   Because the groundwater was also found to
contain high levels of  iron (200 mg/L) and carbonates that
could scale  the quartz tubes and  impair  the treatment
efficiency, PSI recommended groundwater pretreatment.
Pretreatment  consists of  iron  oxidation  and  removal,
followed  by  pH  adjustment to  about 5.   Pretreated
groundwater  is  then treated by  a perox-pure™  system
equipped with automatic quartz tube cleaners.  Currently,
the perox-pure™ system treats groundwater at a flow rate of
70 gpm and produces an effluent that meets the discharge
standard of 0.1 mg/L.
    Potential sites for applying the perox-pure™ technology
include Superfund  and other hazardous waste sites where
groundwater or other liquid wastes are contaminated with
organic compounds. The technology has been used to treat
landfill leachate, groundwater, and industrial wastewater, all
containing  a variety  of organic  contaminants,  including
chlorinated  solvents,  pesticides,  polynuclear   aromatic
hydrocarbons,  and petroleum  hydrocarbons.   In  some
applications, where  the contaminant  concentration  was
higher than about  500 mg/L, the perox-pure™ system was
combined  with  other  treatment  technologies  for   cost
effectiveness.

1.6 Economics

    Using   information   obtained   from  the   SITE
demonstration,  an economic analysis  was performed to
examine 12 separate cost categories for perox-pure™ systems
treating  about  260 million  gallons   of  contaminated
groundwater at a Superfund site. This analysis examined two
cases based on groundwater characteristics. In Case 1, the
groundwater was assumed to have five contaminants, two of
which are easy to oxidize (TCE and PCE) and the remaining
three are difficult to oxidize (chloroform, DCA, and TCA).
In Case 2, the groundwater was assumed to have only two
contaminants that are easy to oxidize (TCE and PCE).  For
each case, costs for three different flow rates (10, 50, and
100 gpm) were estimated.  Detailed economic analysis for
the three flow rates of each case is included in Section 4.
Costs for the 50-gpm flow  rate scenario for each case are
summarized below.

    For Case 1, capital costs  are estimated  to  be  about
$906,000 of which the perox-pure™ system direct capital cost
is  $185,000. Annual  operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs are  estimated to  be  about  $188,000  of which
perox-pure™  system  direct  O&M  costs  are   $125,000.
Groundwater remediation  costs to  treat 1,000 gallons of
contaminated water are estimated to be about $11 of which
perox-pure™ system direct treatment costs are $5.

    For Case 2, capital costs  are estimated  to  be  about
$776,000 of which the perox-pure™ system direct capital cost
is  $55,000.  Annual O&M costs are estimated to be about
$111,000 of which perox-pure™ system direct O&M costs are
$61,000.     Groundwater  remediation  costs   to   treat
1,000 gallons  of contaminated water are estimated  to be
about $7 of which perox-pure™ system direct treatment costs
are $3.

    The case studies included in Appendix C have minimal
cost data.  According to PSI, in the case studies, the total
O&M costs ranged from $0.28 to $3.90 per 1,000 gallons of
water treated.

-------

-------
                                                   Section  2
                                                 Introduction
    This section provides information about the Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program, discusses
the purpose of this report, and describes the perox-pure™
chemical oxidation technology developed by Peroxidation
Systems, Inc. (PSI), of Tucson, Arizona.  The perox-pure™
technology  is designed to treat waters contaminated with
organic compounds.  For additional information about the
SITE  program,  the  perox-pure™  technology,  or  the
demonstration site, key contacts are listed at the end of this
section.

2.1 Purpose, History, and  Goals  of the  SITE
Program

    The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA)  of 1986 mandates that  the  U.S. Environmental
Protection  Agency (EPA) select,  to the maximum extent
practicable, remedial actions at Superfund  sites that create
permanent  solutions (as opposed to land-based disposal) for
contamination  that   affects  human   health  and   the
environment. In doing so, EPA is directed to use alternative
or  resource  recovery technologies.  In response, EPA's
Office of Research and Development (ORD) and Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) established
three programs: (1) a program to accelerate the use of new
or  innovative technologies  to  clean  up Superfund  sites
through field demonstrations; (2)  a program to foster the
further research and development of treatment technologies
that are at  the laboratory or pilot scale; and (3) a program
to demonstrate and evaluate new or innovative measurement
and  monitoring  technologies.   Together, these  three
components make up the SITE program.

    The primary purpose of the SITE program is to enhance
the development and demonstration, and thereby establish
the  commercial  availability,  of  innovative technologies
applicable  to Superfund sites.  The  SITE program has
established the following goals:

    •  Identify   and   remove  impediments  to   the
        development and commercial use of alternative
        technologies
    •   Demonstrate promising innovative technologies to
        establish reliable performance and cost information
        for site characterization and remediation decisions

    •   Develop procedures and policies that encourage the
        selection  of  alternative  treatment  remedies  at
        Superfund sites

    •   Develop a program that promotes and supports
        emerging technologies

    EPA recognizes that a number of forces  inhibit  the
expanded  use  of new and  alternative  technologies  at
Superfund sites. The SITE program's goals are designed to
identify the most promising new technologies,  develop
pertinent and useful data of known quality about them, and
make the data available to Superfund decision makers.  An
additional goal is to promote the development of emerging
innovative technologies from the laboratory- or bench-scale
to the full-scale stage.

    Implementation of the SITE program is a  significant
ongoing effort involving ORD,  OSWER, various EPA
Regions, and  private  sector business  concerns, including
technology  developers and  parties responsible for  site
remediation.   The technology  selection process and  the
demonstration  program  together  provide  objective and
carefully controlled  testing  of field-ready  technologies.
Through government  publications, the  SITE  program
disseminates testing results to Superfund decision makers for
use in evaluating the  applicability of technologies to site-
specific remediation efforts.

    The  demonstration  process collects  the  following
information for Superfund decision makers to consider when
matching technologies with wastes, media, and sites requiring
remediation:

    •   The  technology's effectiveness based on field
        demonstration  sampling  and   analytical  data
        collected during the demonstration

-------
    •   The  potential   need   for   pretreatment   and
        posttreatment of wastes

    •   The site-specific wastes and  media to which the
        technology can be applied

    •   Potential site-specific system operating problems as
        well as possible solutions

    •   The  approximate   capital,   operating,   and
        maintenance costs

    •   The projected long-term operation and maintenance
        (O&M) costs

    Innovative technologies chosen for a SITE demonstration
must be pilot- or full-scale applications and must offer some
advantage over existing technologies.  Mobile technologies
are of particular interest.  Each year the SITE program
sponsors demonstrations of approximately 10 technologies.

2.2 Documentation  of the SITE Demonstration
Results

    The results of each SITE demonstration are reported in
two documents:  the Applications Analysis Report (AAR)
and the Technology Evaluation Report (TER). The AAR is
intended for decision makers responsible for implementing
specific remedial actions  and is primarily used to assist in
screening the demonstrated technology as an option for a
particular cleanup situation.  The purpose of the AAR is
discussed in the following section.

    The TER is published separately from the AAR  and
provides  a comprehensive description of the demonstration
and its results.  A likely audience  for the TER includes
engineers responsible for  evaluating  the  technology for
specific site and waste situations.  These technical evaluators
seek to  understand,  in  detail,  the performance  of the
technology during the demonstration, as well as advantages,
disadvantages, and costs of the technology for the given
application.  This information is used to produce conceptual
designs in  sufficient detail  to enable  preliminary cost
estimates for the demonstrated technology. If the candidate
technology appears to meet the needs of site engineers, a
more thorough analysis will be conducted based on the TER,
the AAR, and other site-specific information obtained from
remedial investigations.

2.3 Purpose of the Applications  Analysis Report

    Information presented in the AAR is intended to assist
Superfund decision makers in screening specific technologies
for a particular cleanup situation. The report discusses the
advantages, disadvantages, and limitations of the technology.
Costs  of the technology for  different applications  are
estimated based on available data for pilot- and full-scale
applications.  The report discusses factors that have a major
impact on cost and performance, such as site and waste
characteristics.

    To  encourage  the  general  use  of  demonstrated
technologies, EPA will evaluate the applicability of each
technology for specific sites and wastes, other than those
already tested,  and will study the estimated costs of the
applications.  The  results are presented in the  AAR.  This
AAR synthesizes available information on PSI's perox-pure™
chemical  oxidation technology  and  draws   reasonable
conclusions regarding its range of applicability.  This AAR
will  be useful to  decision makers considering using the
perox-pure™ technology. It represents a critical step in the
development and  commercialization  of  the treatment
technology.

    Each  SITE demonstration  evaluates  a technology's
performance hi treating an individual waste at  a particular
site. To obtain data with broad applicability, priority is given
to  technologies that  treat wastes  frequently found  at
Superfund sites.  However, in many cases, wastes at other
sites will differ  in some  way from  the  waste at  the
demonstration site.  Therefore, the successful demonstration
of a technology at one site does not ensure its success at
other sites.   Data obtained from  the  demonstration may
require extrapolation to estimate total operating ranges over
which  the   technology  performs  satisfactorily.    Any
extrapolation of demonstration data should also  be based on
other available information from  case studies about the
technology.

    The amount of available data for the evaluation of an
innovative technology varies widely. Data may be limited to
laboratory tests  on  synthetic wastes or  may include
performance data on actual wastes treated by pilot- or full-
scale treatment  systems.    In   addition,  only limited
conclusions regarding Superfund applications can be drawn
from a single  field demonstration.   A  successful  field
demonstration does not necessarily ensure that a technology
will be widely applicable or that it will be fully developed to
commercial scale.

2.4 Technology Description

    In April 1991, EPA learned that PSI was contracted by
Lawrence Livermore  National  Laboratory  (LLNL)  to
perform pilot-scale studies as part of remediation  activities
at the LLNL site. At that time, EPA and PSI discussed the
possibility of PSI  participating in the SITE  program  to
demonstrate  how  the  perox-pure™  chemical  oxidation
technology could be used to treat contaminated groundwater
at Site 300 of LLNL in Tracy, California. EPA subsequently
accepted  the perox-pure™  technology  into   the  SITE
demonstration program.   Through  a cooperative  effort
between EPA ORD, EPA Region IX, LLNL, and PSI, the

-------
perox-pure™ technology was demonstrated at the LLNL site
under the SITE program.

2.4.1  Treatment Technology

    The perox-pure™ chemical oxidation treatment system
was  developed  by PSI   to  destroy  dissolved  organic
contaminants in water. The technology uses ultraviolet (UV)
radiation  and  hydrogen  peroxide  to oxidize  organic
compounds present in water at parts per million (ppm) levels
or less. In broad terms, oxidation is a chemical change in
which electrons are lost by an atom or a group of atoms.
Oxidation  of  an  atom or  group  of  atoms  is  always
accompanied by the reduction of another atom or group of
atoms. Reduction is a chemical change in which electrons
are gained by an atom or  group of atoms.   The atom  or
group of atoms that has lost electrons has been oxidized, and
the atom  or group of atoms that has gained electrons has
been reduced.  The reduced atom or  group of atoms is
called  an  oxidant.  Oxidation  and reduction always occur
simultaneously, and the total number of electrons lost in the
oxidation  must equal the number of electrons gained in the
reduction.   In   the  perox-pure™  technology,  organic
contaminants in water are  oxidized by hydroxyl radicals, a
powerful oxidant produced by UV radiation and  hydrogen
peroxide.   Subsequently,  the  organic  contaminants are
broken down into carbon  dioxide, water, halides, and  in
some cases, organic acids.

    A  variety  of  organic  contaminants can  be  effectively
oxidized  by the combined use  of (1)  UV  radiation and
hydrogen  peroxide, (2) UV radiation  and  ozone, or (3)
ozone and hydrogen peroxide. The principal  oxidants in the
perox-pure™ system,  hydroxyl  radicals,  are produced  by
direct  UV photolysis of the hydrogen  peroxide  added  to
contaminated water. The perox-pure™ system generates UV
radiation by using medium-pressure, mercury-vapor lamps.

    In principle, the most  direct way to generate hydroxyl
radicals (OH»)  is to cleave  hydrogen peroxide  (H2O2)
through photolysis.  The photolysis of  hydrogen peroxide
occurs when UV  radiation (hu) is applied, as shown in the
following  reaction:

                 H2O2 + hu -* 2 OH»

    Thus, photolysis  of hydrogen peroxide  results  in a
quantum yield of two hydroxyl radicals  (OH>) formed per
quantum  of radiation absorbed.   This ratio of hydroxyl
radicals generated from the photolysis of hydrogen peroxide
is high. Unfortunately, at 253.7 nanometers, the dominant
emission  wavelength  of  low-pressure  UV lamps, the
absorptivity (or molar extinction coefficient) of  hydrogen
peroxide  is only  19.6 liters per  mole-centimeter.   This
absorptivity is relatively low for a primary absorber in a
photochemical process.  Because of the low absorptivity
value for hydrogen peroxide, a high concentration of residual
hydrogen peroxide must be present in the treatment medium
to generate a sufficient concentration of hydroxyl radicals.
According  to PSI, the perox-pure™ system overcomes this
limitation by  using medium-pressure UV lamps.

    The hydroxyl radicals formed by photolysis react rapidly
with organic compounds, with rate constants on the order of
10s to 1010 liters per mole-second; they also have a relatively
low selectivity in their reactions (Glaze and others, 1987).
However, naturally occurring water components,  such  as
carbonate ion, bicarbonate ion, and some oxidizable species,
act as free radical scavengers that consume hydroxyl radicals.
Free radical  scavengers are compounds that consume any
species possessing  at least  one  unpaired  electron.   In
addition  to naturally occurring scavengers, excess hydrogen
peroxide can itself act as a free radical scavenger, decreasing
the hydroxyl radical concentration. Reactions with hydroxyl
radicals are not the only removal pathway possible in the
perox-pure™  system; direct photolysis by UV radiation  of
organic compounds  also provides a removal pathway for
contaminants. With these factors affecting the reaction, the
proportion of oxidants required  for  optimum removal is
difficult  to predetermine.    Instead, the  proportion  for
optimum removal must be determined experimentally for
each waste.

    The principal operating parameters for the perox-pure™
technology are hydrogen peroxide  dose, influent pH, and
flow  rate  (which determines  hydraulic  retention tune).
Typically, during treatability studies, initial values of these
parameters are  selected based   on  (1) the  technology
developer's experience and (2) the anticipated effects of the
operating  parameters   on   the   treatment   system's
performance. These operating parameters are discussed
briefly below. Their effects on the system's performance are
discussed in detail in Section 3.

    Hydrogen peroxide dose is selected based on treatment
unit  configuration,  contaminated  water chemistry, and
contaminant oxidation rates. Because hydrogen peroxide is
a hydroxyl  radical scavenger, excess hydrogen peroxide can
result in  a net decrease in treatment efficiency. However, if
the  hydrogen  peroxide dose is  low, hydroxyl  radical
formation will also be low, decreasing treatment efficiency.
Therefore, a balance must be maintained between excess and
low levels of hydrogen peroxide.

    Influent pH level controls the carbonate chemistry, which
can affect  treatment efficiency.   Because carbonate and
bicarbonate ions will scavenge hydroxyl radicals, groundwater
pH may need to be adjusted before treatment to shift the
carbonate  equilibrium to carbonic acid, which is not a
scavenger.

    Flow rate through the treatment system will determine
hydraulic retention time. Increasing or decreasing the flow
rate will affect treatment efficiency by changing the tune

-------
available for hydroxyl radical formation and contaminant
destruction.

2,4.2 System Components and Function

    The perox-pure™ chemical oxidation systems are typically
assembled  from the  following  portable,  skid-mounted
components:  a chemical oxidation unit, a hydrogen peroxide
feed module, a UV lamp drive, and a control panel unit. In
addition to these mam system components, other equipment
is used to address site-specific conditions or requirements,
including contaminated  water characteristics and effluent
discharge  limits.  For  example,  Figure 2-1 presents a
schematic diagram of the main and ancillary components of
the perox-pure™ chemical  oxidation system used for  the
SITE demonstration (Model SSB-30).

    For the SITE demonstration, a skid-mounted acid feed
module and a base feed module were used to adjust pH of
water before and after treatment, respectively. PSI provided
the  acid  (sulfuric  acid)  and  base  (sodium  hydroxide)
solutions in  drums.   Two cartridge filters arranged in
parallel, capable of screening suspended silt larger than 3
micrometers,  were  used  to remove particles from  the
groundwater, which was primarily contaminated with volatile
organic compounds (VOC) including trichloroethene (TCE)
and  tctrachloroethene (PCE).   A spiking  solution feed
module was used to spike effluent from cartridge filters with
chloroform;   1,1-dichloroethane   (DCA);   and    1,1,1-
trichloroethane (TCA) for  certain  demonstration runs. A
7,500-gallon bladder tank was used (1)  as an equalization
tank  and  (2)  as a holding  tank  to perform  a few
demonstration  runs  at flow rates  greater  than  the
groundwater  well yield.  The bladder tank  was useful in
minimizing the volatilization of contaminants. To ensure a
relatively homogeneous  process water, static mixers were
used after chemicals were added at upstream locations in the
treatment system.

    The  SSB-30 model has six  reaction  chambers, or
reactors, with one UV lamp in each reactor. Each UV lamp
has a power  rating of 5 kilowatts (kW), for  a total system
rating of 30 kW. The UV  lamps are mounted inside UV-
transmissive quartz tubes at the center of the reactors, so
that water flows  through the space between the reactor wall
and the quartz tube.  Circular wipers are mounted on the
quartz tubes  housing the  UV  lamps.   The wipers  are
periodically used to remove  any suspended particles that
have coated the quartz tubes.  In a coating environment, this
coating diminishes  the effectiveness of the  system by
blocking some of the UV radiation.

    Contaminated water is pumped to the treatment system
and  enters the  oxidation unit through  a section of pipe
containing  a  temperature gauge, a flow  meter, an influent
sampling port, and hydrogen peroxide and sulfuric acid
addition  points.   Hydrogen peroxide  is  added  to  the
contaminated water  before  it enters the oxidation  unit;
however, a splitter can be used to add hydrogen peroxide at
the inlet of each lamp section to allow for different doses
into  each reactor.    Inside  the  oxidation  unit,  the
contaminated water follows a serpentine path that parallels
each of the six UV  lamps.  The water passes each  lamp
individually, allowing lamps to be turned on or off as needed.
Sample ports are located after each  reactor.  Inside the
oxidation unit,  photolysis of hydrogen peroxide by UV
radiation results in the formation of hydroxyl radicals;  these
free radicals react rapidly with oxidizable compounds, such
as organic contaminants.

    Treated water exits  the oxidation  unit  through  an
effluent pipe equipped with a temperature gauge and sample
port.  The hydrogen peroxide dose is usually set so that the
concentration of  the residual hydrogen peroxide in the
treated water is less than 5 milligrams per liter (mg/L).
Sodium hydroxide is then added to readjust the pH to meet
discharge requirements.

    The control panel on the perox-pure™ system monitors
water flow rate, total flow through the  system, UV  lamp
current in each reactor, and alarm conditions for the perox-
pure™ unit.  Hydrogen  peroxide  and acid injection are
activated by switches on the control panel and are monitored
with flow meters.

2.4.3 Innovative Features of the Technology

    Common   methods   for    treating   groundwater
contaminated with solvents and other organic compounds
include air stripping, steam stripping, carbon adsorption,
chemical oxidation, and biological treatment. As regulatory
requirements for  secondary wastes  and  treatment by-
products became more stringent and  expensive to  comply
with,  oxidation  technologies have been  known to  offer a
major advantage over other treatment techniques:  chemical
oxidation technologies destroy  contaminants rather than
transferring them to another medium,  such  as  activated
carbon or the ambient  air.   Also, chemical  oxidation
technologies  offer   faster  reaction  rates  than   other
technologies, such as some biological  treatment processes.
However, the  oxidation  of  organics by  ozone,  hydrogen
peroxide, or UV radiation  alone  has kinetic limitations,
restricting  its  applicability to   a  narrow  range  of
contaminants. As a result of these limitations, conventional
chemical oxidation technologies have been slow to become
cost-competitive treatment options.

    The combined use  of  UV radiation  and  hydrogen
peroxide in the perox-pure™ system increases the destruction
efficiency of the treatment system  and allows for the
treatment of a wider  range of contaminants.   Hydroxyl
radicals  formed by UV  photolysis of hydrogen peroxide
rapidly  oxidize   the  contaminants  and  exhibit  little
contaminant selectivity.

-------
         GROUNDWATER FROM
             SITE 300
                                                                                                 *-TO DISPOSAL
                                                                                                          UV LAMP
                                                                                                          REACTOR
                                                                                        OXIDATION UNIT
          SPIKING
         SOLUTION
Figure 2-1 perox-pure"* Chemical Oxidation Treatment System

    The  perox-pure™ treatment system  produces no  air
emissions and generates no  sludge  or spent media that
require further processing, handling, or disposal.  Ideally,
end products include water, carbon dioxide, halides, and in
some cases, organic acids. However, other oxidizable species
present in the water (including metals in reduced form,
cyanide, and nitrite) can also be oxidized in the process and
can exert an additional oxidant demand.

    Hydrogen peroxide is inexpensive, easy to handle, and
readily available.  As a result, its use with UV radiation in
the perox-pure™ system offers considerable advantages over
expensive and difficult to handle chemicals.

    Table 2-1 compares several treatment options for water
contaminated with VOCs. Similar comparisons can be made
for semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC), polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB), and pesticides, although air stripping is not
generally applicable to these types of contaminants.
2.5 Key Contacts

    Additional information on the perox-pure™ chemical
oxidation technology, the SITE program, and Site 300 at
LLNL can be obtained from the following sources:

1. The perox-pure™ Technology

Chris Giggy
Process Engineering  Manager
Peroxidation Systems, Inc.
5151 East Broadway, Suite 600
Tucson, Arizona 85711
(602) 790-8383

2. The SITE Program

Norma Lewis
Section  Chief, EPA Project Manager
EPA SITE Program
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati,  Ohio 45268
(513) 569-7665

-------
Tibia 2-1 Comparison of Technologies for Treating VOCs in Water


    Technology                            Advantages
                                     Disadvantages
    Air stripping
    Steam stripping
Effective at high concentrations;
mechanically simple; relatively
inexpensive

Effective at all concentrations
    Alf stripping with carbon adsorption of     Effective at high concentrations
    vapors
    Air stripping with carbon adsorption of     Effective at high concentrations; no
    vapors and spent carbon regeneration     carbon disposal costs; can reclaim the
                                          product
    Carbon adsorption
    Biological treatment
    parox-pura'" technology
Low air emissions; effective at high
concentrations
Low air emissions; relatively
inexpensive
No air emissions; no secondary waste;
VOCs destroyed
Inefficient at low concentrations; VOCs
discharged to air


VOCs discharged to air; high energy
consumption

Inefficient at low concentrations;
requires disposal  or regeneration of
spent carbon

Inefficient at low concentrations; high
energy consumption


Inefficient at low concentrations;
requires disposal  or regeneration of
spent carbon; relatively expensive

Inefficient at high  concentrations; slow
rates of removal; sludge treatment and
disposal required

High energy consumption; not cost-
effective at high concentrations
3. The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Site 300

Albert Lamarre
Site 300 Section Leader
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
7000 East Avenue
P.O. Box 808, L-619
Livermore, California  94550
(510) 422-0757

Shyam Shukla
Project Manager, Site 300
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
7000 East Avenue
P.O. Box 808, L-528
Livermore, California  94550
(510) 422-3475
                                                               10

-------
                                                   Section 3
                                    Technology Applications Analysis
    This  section  addresses  the  applicability  of  the
perox-pure™ chemical oxidation technology to treat water
contaminated with organic compounds.  The vendor claims
regarding  the  applicability  and  performance  of  the
perox-pure™  technology  are  included  in Appendix A.
Because results from the  SITE demonstration provided an
extensive  data  base,  evaluation  of  the  technology's
effectiveness and its potential applicability to contaminated
sites is mainly based on these results, which are presented in
Appendix B.    The  SITE  demonstration  results  are
supplemented  by results  from  other applications  of the
perox-pure™ technology, which are presented in Appendix C.

    This section  summarizes  the effectiveness  of  the
perox-pure™ chemical oxidation technology and discusses the
following  topics in relation  to the applicability  of the
perox-pure™ technology:  factors influencing performance,
site   characteristics,  material  handling   requirements,
personnel requirements, potential community exposures, and
potential regulatory requirements.

3.1 Effectiveness of the perox-pure™ Technology

    This  section  discusses  the   effectiveness  of  the
perox-pure™ technology based on results  from the SITE
demonstration and three other case studies.

3.1.1 SITE Demonstration Results

    The SITE demonstration  was conducted at LLNL Site
300 in Tracy, California, over a 3-week period in September
1992.  During the demonstration, a perox-pure™ unit (Model
SSB-30) treated  about  40,000  gallons of  groundwater
contaminated   with   VOCs.     Principal   groundwater
contaminants included TCE and PCE, which were present at
concentrations of about 1,000 and 100 micrograins per liter
(;ttg/L),  respectively.  Other  VOCs (such  as chloroform;
DCA; 1,1-dichloroethene;  1,2-dichloroethene; and TCA)
were  present at average concentrations below 15 /xg/L.
Groundwater was pumped from two wells into a 7,500-gallon
bladder   tank   to  minimize   variability   in   influent
characteristics.  In addition, cartridge filters were used to
remove  suspended solids greater than 3 micrometers in size
from the groundwater before it entered the bladder tank.
Treated groundwater was stored in two 20,000-gallon steel
tanks before being discharged.

    The   perox-pure™  chemical  oxidation   technology
demonstration performed under the SITE program had the
following primary objectives:

    •   Assess the technology's ability to destroy VOCs
        from groundwater at the LLNL site under different
        operating conditions

    •   Determine whether  the  treated  water  meets
        applicable disposal requirements at the 95 percent
        confidence level

    •   Obtain  information  required  to  estimate   the
        operating  costs for the treatment system, such as
        electrical power consumption and chemical doses

    The   secondary   objective   for   the   technology
demonstration was to obtain preliminary information on the
presence  and types of by-products formed during  the
treatment.

    The technology demonstration was conducted in three
phases.    Phase  1 consisted  of eight runs  using  raw
groundwater, Phase 2 consisted of four runs using spiked
groundwater, and Phase 3 consisted of two runs using spiked
groundwater  to evaluate  the effectiveness of quartz tube
cleaning. The three phases are described below.

    The principal operating parameters for the perox-pure™
system are hydrogen peroxide dose, influent pH, and flow
rate.  During Phase 1 of the demonstration, each of these
operating parameters was varied to observe treatment system
performance under different conditions. Preferred operating
conditions, those under which the concentrations of spiked
groundwater  effluent VOCs would be reduced to below
target levels,  were then determined for  the system. The
target levels for the VOCs are given in Appendix B.
                                                        11

-------
    During Phase 2, groundwater was spiked with known
concentrations of contaminants, and reproducibility  tests
wore conducted.  Spiked groundwater contained 200 to 300
ftg/L each  of  DCA,  TCA,   and chloroform.   These
compounds were chosen because they are difficult to oxidize
and because they were not present in the groundwater at
high concentrations.  This  phase was  also  designed  to
evaluate the reproducibility of treatment system performance
at the preferred operating conditions determined in Phase 1.

    Phase 3 evaluated the effectiveness of the quartz tube
wipers by performing two runs using spiked groundwater and
scaled and clean quartz tubes.

    During the demonstration, samples were collected at the
following locations: treatment system influent, effluent from
Reactor 1, effluent from Reactor 2, effluent from Reactor 3,
and treatment system effluent.  Samples were analyzed for
VOCs, SVOCs, total organic carbon (TOC), total carbon,
purgeable organic carbon  (POC), total  organic halides
(TOX), adsorbable organic halides  (AOX),  metals, pH,
alkalinity,  turbidity, temperature,  specific  conductance,
hydrogen peroxide residual, and hardness, as applicable.  In
addition, samples of influent to Reactor 1 and treatment
system effluent were collected and analyzed for acute toxicity
to freshwater organisms. Hydrogen peroxide, acid, and base
solutions  were  also sampled  and  analyzed  to  verify
concentrations.

    Appendix B summarizes information from the SITE
demonstration,   including   (1)   site   characteristics,
(2) contaminated  groundwater   characteristics,
(3)  perox-purew  system performance, and (4) technology
evaluation results. Key findings of the demonstration are as
follows:

    •   For the spiked  groundwater, PSI determined the
        following  preferred  operating  conditions:  (1)
        influent hydrogen peroxide level of 40  mg/L; (2)
        hydrogen peroxide level of 25 mg/L in the influent
        to Reactors 2 through 6; (3) an influent pH of 5.0;
        and (4) a flow rate of 10 gallons per minute (gpm).
        At these conditions, the effluent TCE, PCE, and
        DCA levels were generally below the detection limit
        (5 jtg/L) and effluent chloroform and TCA levels
        ranged from 15 to 30 pgfL. The average overall
        removal efficiencies for TCE,  PCE, chloroform,
        DCA, and TCA were about 99.7, 97.1, 93.1, 98.3,
        and 81.8 percent, respectively.

    •   For the unspiked groundwater, the effluent TCE
        and PCE levels were generally below the detection
        limit  (1 Mg/L)   with   corresponding   removal
        efficiencies of about 99.9 and 99.7 percent.  The
        effluent TCA levels ranged from 1.4 to 6.7 jug/L
        with removal efficiencies  ranging from 35  to
        84 percent.
    •  The perox-pure™ system  effluent  met California
       drinking water action levels and federal drinking
       water  maximum contaminant  levels  (MCL)  for
       TCE, PCE, chloroform, DCA, and TCA at the 95
       percent confidence level.

    •  The quartz tube wipers were effective in keeping
       the tubes clean and appeared to reduce the effect
       scaling has on contaminant removal efficiencies.

    •  TOX removal efficiencies ranged  from 93 to 99
       percent. AOX removal efficiencies ranged from 95
       to 99 percent.

    •  For spiked groundwater, during reproducibility runs,
       the system achieved average removal efficiencies of
       38  percent and greater than 93 percent for TOC
       and POC, respectively.

    •  The temperature of groundwater increased at a rate
       of 12 °F per minute of UV radiation exposure in
       the perox-pure™ system. Since the oxidation unit is
       exposed to  the surrounding  environment,   the
       temperature increase may vary depending upon the
       ambient  temperature   or  other   atmospheric
       conditions.

3.1.2 Results of Other Case Studies

    The perox-pure™  technology  has been used to treat
contaminated water at approximately 80  sites.  Results from
three of these applications are discussed as case studies in
Appendix C.  A brief summary of the effectiveness of the
perox-pure™ technology  at the three  sites  chosen as  case
studies is presented below.

    All three  case  studies  represent full-scale,  currently
operating commercial installations of perox-pure™ chemical
oxidation systems.  The  contaminants of concern hi these
case studies include acetone, isopropyl alcohol  (IPA), TCE,
and pentachlorophenol (PCP).  In the first case study, the
perox-pure™ system treated industrial wastewater containing
20 mg/L of acetone and IPA; the effluent met the discharge
limit of 0.5 mg/L.  In the second case study, the perox-pure™
system treated groundwater that was used as a municipal
drinking water source. The groundwater initially contained
an  average  concentration of  150 Mg/L  TCE.   After
treatment, the effluent TCE level was 0.5 /tg/L, well below
the TCE drinking water standard of 5 /tg/L.  In the third
case study,  the perox-pure™ system treated groundwater at
a  chemical  manufacturing  facility.    The   groundwater
contained 15 mg/L of PCP; treatment achieved the target
effluent PCP level of 0.1 mg/L.
                                                         12

-------
3.2 Factors Influencing Performance

    Several  factors  influence  the  effectiveness  of the
perox-pure™ chemical oxidation technology.  These factors
can  be  grouped  into  three   categories:    (1) influent
characteristics,   (2) operating   parameters,   and   (3)
maintenance  requirements.   Each of these is  discussed
below.

3.2.1 Influent Characteristics

    The  perox-pure™  chemical oxidation  technology  is
capable of treating water containing a variety of organic
contaminants,   including  VOCs,   SVOCs,   pesticides,
polynuclear  aromatic  hydrocarbons  (PAH),  PCBs,  and
petroleum hydrocarbons.  Under a given set of operating
conditions, contaminant removal efficiencies depend on the
chemical structure of the contaminants. Removal efficiencies
are high for organic contaminants with double bonds (such
as TCE, PCE, and vinyl chloride) and aromatic compounds
(such as phenol,  toluene, benzene,  and xylene), because
these compounds are easy to oxidize.  Organic contaminants
without double bonds (such as TCA and chloroform) are not
easily oxidized and are more difficult to remove.

    Contaminant concentration also affects treatment system
effectiveness.  The perox-pure™ system is most effective  in
treating water with contaminant concentrations less than
about 500 mg/L. If contaminant concentrations are greater
than 500 mg/L, the perox-pure™ system  may be used  in
combination with other treatment technologies, such as air
stripping.  For highly contaminated water, the perox-pure™
system can also be  operated in a "flow-through with recycle"
mode, in which part of the effluent is recycled back through
the oxidation unit to improve overall removal efficiency.

    The  perox-pure™  system uses a  chemical  oxidation
process to destroy organic contaminants; therefore, other
species in the influent that consume oxidants are considered
an additional load for the system. These species are called
scavengers. A scavenger may be described as any species in
water other than the target  contaminants that consumes
oxidants.   Common  scavengers include  anions  such  as
bicarbonate, carbonate, sulfide, nitrite, bromide, and cyanide.
Metals present in reduced states, such as trivalent chromium,
ferrous iron, manganous ion, and several others, are also
likely to be  oxidized.  In addition to acting as scavengers,
these reduced metals can cause additional concerns under
alkaline pH conditions.  For example, trivalent chromium
can be oxidized to hexavalent  chromium, which is more
toxic. Ferrous iron and manganous ion are converted to less
soluble forms, which precipitate in the reactor, creating
suspended solids  that  can build up on  the  quartz tubes
housing the UV lamps. Natural organic compounds, such as
humic acid (often measured as  TOC), are  also potential
scavengers in this treatment technology.
    Other  influent  characteristics  of  concern  include
suspended  solids, oil, and grease.  These constituents can
build up  on  the  quartz tubes housing  the  UV lamps,
resulting  in  reduced  UV transmission and decreased
treatment efficiency.

3.2.2 Operating Parameters

    Operating parameters are those parameters that can be
varied during the treatment  process  to achieve desired
removal efficiencies.  The principal operating parameters for
the perox-pure™ system are hydrogen peroxide dose, influent
pH, and flow rate.

    Hydrogen peroxide dose is selected based on treatment
unit  configuration,  contaminated water chemistry,  and
contaminant  oxidation  rates.   Under  ideal  conditions,
hydrogen peroxide is photolyzed to hydroxyl radicals, which
are the principal oxidants in the system.  Direct photolysis of
each molecule of hydrogen peroxide results in a yield of two
hydroxyl  radicals.    The  molar extinction  coefficient of
hydrogen  peroxide  at  253.7  nanometers,  the  dominant
emission wavelength  of low-pressure UV lamps, is  only 19.6
liters per mole-centimeter, which is low for a primary
absorber in a photochemical  process (Glaze  and others,
1987). Therefore, although the yield of hydroxyl radicals
from hydrogen peroxide photolysis is relatively high, the low
molar extinction coefficient requires that a  relatively high
concentration  of hydrogen peroxide exist  in  the water.
However,  because excess hydrogen peroxide is also  a
hydroxyl radical scavenger, hydrogen peroxide levels that are
too  high  could result  in a  net  decrease in treatment
efficiency.   According  to PSI, the perox-pure™ system
overcomes these limitations by using  medium-pressure UV
lamps.

    The perox-pure™ system is equipped with a hydrogen
peroxide splitter that allows the operator to inject hydrogen
peroxide to the oxidation unit influent and directly  to any of
the individual oxidation reactors.  The distribution of the
total  hydrogen peroxide dose  is an important operating
parameter, because the hydroxyl radical has a short lifetime.
If the total hydrogen  peroxide dose is  delivered to the
influent,  depending  on  other operating conditions,  the
resulting hydroxyl radical concentration in the last reactor
may be zero.  Consequently, removal efficiency in the last
reactor would decrease significantly.. Distributing part of the
hydrogen peroxide dose directly to the reactors guarantees
that some hydroxyl radicals will be present throughout the
oxidation unit.

    Influent pH controls the equilibrium among carbonate,
bicarbonate,  and  carbonic acid.    This  equilibrium is
important to treatment efficiency  because carbonate and
bicarbonate ions are hydroxyl radical scavengers. If the
influent carbonate and bicarbonate concentration is greater
than about 400 mg/L as calcium carbonate, the pH should
                                                         13

-------
be lowered to between 4 and 6 to improve the treatment
efficiency. At low pH, the carbonate equilibrium is shifted
to carbonic acid, which is not a scavenger.

    Flow rate through the treatment system determines the
hydraulic retention time.  la general, increasing the hydraulic
retention time improves treatment efficiency by increasing
the   time   available   for   contaminant   destruction.
Theoretically,  at a certain  point, the reaction proceeds
toward equilibrium, and increasing the hydraulic retention
time no longer significantly increases removal efficiency. PSI
did not observe this phenomenon in the range of hydraulic
retention times provided by the perox-pure™ system.

3.2.3 Maintenance Requirements

    The  maintenance requirements  for the  perox-pure™
system summarized below are based on discussions with PSI
during and  after  the  SITE  demonstration.    Regular
maintenance  by  trained personnel  is  essential  for the
successful operation of the perox-pure™ system.  The only
major system component that requires regular maintenance
is the UV  lamp assembly.  A  brief summary  of the
maintenance requirements for the UV  lamp assembly and
other miscellaneous components is presented below.

    Regular  UV lamp  assembly maintenance includes
periodically cleaning the quartz tubes housing the UV lamps.
Eventually, the  lamps may need  to be  replaced.  The
frequency at  which the  quartz tubes  should be cleaned
depends on the type and concentration  of suspended solids
present in the influent or formed during treatment. Cleaning
frequency may range from once every month to once every
3 months. UV lamp assemblies can be removed from the
oxidation unit to provide access to the quartz tubes, which
can then be cleaned manually. The quartz tubes can also be
cleaned  automatically  during  operation  with   wipers.
Automatic tube cleaning is a standard feature on most PSI
treatment units. The quartz tube wipers require replacement
once every 3 to 6 months depending upon the cleaning cycle
frequency.

    Maintenance requirements  for the medium-pressure,
mercury-vapor, broad-band UV lamps  used in the perox-
pure™ system  are similar to those for conventional, low-
pressure  UV lamps.  The life of low-pressure UV lamps
normally cited by most manufacturers is 7,500 hours, based
on a  use cycle of 8 hours.  The use cycle represents the
length of time the UV  lamp is operated between shutdowns.
Decreasing the use cycle or increasing the frequency at
which a UV lamp is turned on and off can lead to  early
lamp  failure.

    A number of factors contribute to UV lamp aging.
These factors include plating of mercury to the ulterior lamp
walls, a process called blackening, and solarization of the
lamp  enclosure material, which reduces its transmissibility.
These factors cause steady deterioration in lamp output at
the effective wavelength and may reduce output at the end
of a lamp's life by 40 to 60 percent. This reduction in lamp
output requires  more  frequent  replacement of the UV
lamps. According to PSI, no significant decline in UV lamp
output occurs until after about 3,000 hours of operation.
Therefore,  PSI recommends replacing the UV lamps after
3,000 hours.  PSI guarantees the UV lamps in the perox-
pure™ unit  for 3,000 hours when they are turned on and off
no more than two or three times a day.

    The only other part of the UV lamp assembly requiring
periodic maintenance is the gasket between the UV lamp
and the reactor.  This gasket, which is used to maintain a
water-tight seal on each reactor, is generally replaced once
a year.

    Other components of the perox-pure™ system, such as
valves, flow meters, piping, hydrogen peroxide feed module,
acid feed module, and base feed module, should be checked
for leaks once a month. In addition, the influent, hydrogen
peroxide, acid, and base feed pumps should be checked once
a month for proper operation and maintenance. Feed pump
heads are usually replaced annually. PSI offers a full-service
program to its customers that covers all regular maintenance
and replacement parts for the system.

3.3 Site Characteristics

    In addition  to influent characteristics and  effluent
discharge requirements, site characteristics are  important
when considering the perox-pure™ technology.  Site-specific
factors can impact the  application of the perox-pure™
technology, and these  effects should be considered before
selecting the technology for remediation of a specific site.
Site-specific factors include support systems, site area and
preparation, site access, climate, utilities, and services and
supplies. Tables 4-1 and 4-2 in Section 4 identify examples
of categories that are specific to the perox-pure™ system and
to a hazardous waste remediation site.

3.3.1 Support Systems

    To clean up contaminated groundwater, extraction wells
and a groundwater collection and distribution system must
be installed to pump groundwater to a central facility where
the perox-pure™ system is  located. Because the perox-pure™
system is normally operated as  a continuous flow-through
system  during  site remediation,  installation  of several
extraction wells may be required to provide a continuous
supply of  groundwater.   An  equalization tank  may be
required if flow rates from the groundwater wells fluctuate
or if contaminant concentrations vary.  When installing a
groundwater collection and distribution system, preventive
measures   should   be  considered  to  reduce  volatile
contaminant losses.
                                                         14

-------
    Before  choosing the  perox-pure™  technology,  the
location, design, and installation of tanks, piping, and other
equipment or chemicals associated with any pretreatment
systems should be considered. Pretreatment is often desired
to remove oil and grease, suspended solids, or metals. Any
tanks that are part of pretreatment or other support systems
should be equipped with vapor control devices (for example,
floating lids) to prevent VOC losses.

    If  on-site facilities  are not available for  office  and
laboratory work, a small building or shed may be  required
near the treatment system.  The on-site building should be
equipped with electrical power to run laboratory equipment
and should be heated or air-conditioned, depending on the
climate.  The  on-site laboratory should contain  equipment
needed to perform  simple analyses of the physical  and
chemical water characteristics required to monitor treatment
system performance.  Such  characteristics may include pH,
hydrogen peroxide dose, and temperature.

3.3.2  Site Area and Preparation

    The perox-pure™ units are available in several sizes,
ranging in combined UV lamp power from 10 to  720 kW.
The perox-pure™ units have operated at flow rates between
5 and  several thousand gpm, depending on the  required
hydraulic retention time.  During the SITE demonstration,
a 30-kW perox-pure™ unit with a total volume of 15 gallons
was  used.  A  10- by 20-foot area was adequate  for the
perox-pure™ unit and associated chemical feed units. Larger
systems would require slightly larger areas. Areas  required
for influent and effluent storage tanks, if needed, will depend
on the  number and size of tanks. Also, a 20- by 15-foot area
may be required for an office or laboratory building.

    The area  containing the perox-pure™ unit and tanks
should be relatively level and should be paved  or covered
with compacted soil or gravel.

3.3.3  Site Access

    Site access requirements for treatment equipment are
minimal. The site must be accessible to tractor-trailer trucks
of standard size and weight. The roadbed must be able to
support such a vehicle delivering the perox-pure™ system and
tanks.

3.3.4 Climate

    According  to PSI,  below-freezing temperatures  and
heavy  precipitation  do  not  affect the  operation of the
perox-pure™ system.  The system is designed to withstand
rain and snow and does not require heating or insulation,
because the  chemical oxidation  process  generates heat,
increasing the water temperature about 12 °F per minute of
contact time.  However, if below-freezing temperatures are
expected for a long period of time, chemical and influent
storage tanks and associated plumbing should be insulated
or kept in a heated shelter, such as a building  or shed.
Housing the system also facilitates regular system checks and
maintenance. The perox-pure™ unit requires a high-voltage
power supply, which should also be protected from heavy
precipitation.

3.3.5 Utilities

    The  perox-pure™ system requires potable  water  and
electricity.  Potable water is required for a safety shower, an
eye wash station, personnel decontamination, and cleaning
field sampling equipment.  The perox-pure™ unit requires
480-volt, 3-phase electrical service.  Electrical power for the
chemical  feed  modules  can be   supplied through  the
perox-pure™ unit. Additional 110-volt, single-phase electrical
service is needed to operate the groundwater extraction well
pumps, light the office and laboratory building, and operate
on-site laboratory and office equipment.

    A telephone connection or cellular phone is required to
order supplies, contact emergency services, and provide
normal communications.

3.3.6 Services and Supplies

    A number of services and supplies are required for the
perox-pure™ technology. Most of these services and supplies
can be readily obtained.

    If UV  lamps,  pumps,  flow  meters,   or piping
malfunctions, an adequate  on-site  supply of spare parts is
needed.  If an on-site parts inventory is not an option, site
proximity to an industrial  supply  center  is an important
consideration. In addition, an adequate supply of chemicals,
such  as  hydrogen  peroxide,  sulfuric acid,  and sodium
hydroxide,  or proximity to a supply center carrying these
chemicals is essential.

    Complex laboratory services, such as  VOC and SVOC
analyses, that cannot usually be performed in an on-site field
laboratory  require contracting a local analytical laboratory
for an ongoing monitoring program.

3.4 Material  Handling Requirements

    The perox-pure™ system does  not generate treatment
residuals, such as sludge or spent media, that require further
processing, handling, or disposal.   The chemical oxidation
unit and  other components of  the system, such as the
chemical  feed  units, are  air-tight and  produce no  air
emissions.    Material  handling   requirements  for  the
perox-pure™ technology include those for (1) pretreatment
materials and (2) treated water. These are described below.
                                                         15

-------
3.4.1 Pretreatment Materials
3.4.2  Treated Water
    In general, pretreatment requirements for contaminated
water  entering  the  perox-pure™  system are  minimal.
Depending on the influent  characteristics, pretreatment
processing may involve one or more of the following:  oil
and grease  removal, suspended solids removal,  metals
removal,  or  pH  adjustment to reduce  carbonate  and
bicarbonate levels.  These  pretreatment requirements are
discussed below.

    Water containing visible, free,  or emulsified oil and
grease requires pretreatment to separate and remove the oil
and grease.   If not treated, oil and grease will scale UV
lamps and reduce UV  transmission, which  makes the
oxidation  process less effective.  Separated oil and grease
should be containerized and analyzed to determine disposal
requirements.

    Because  suspended  solids  can  also  reduce   UV
transmission,  water containing  more than 30 mg/L of
suspended solids should be pretreated. Depending on the
concentration, cartridge filters, sand  filters,  or settling  tanks
may be used  to remove suspended solids.  Solids removed
from the influent by pretreatment precipitation, filtration, or
settling should be dewatered, containerized, and analyzed to
determine whether they should be disposed of as hazardous
or nonhazardous waste.

    Pretreatment also may be necessary for  water containing
dissolved metals, such as iron and manganese. These metals
are likely to be oxidized in the perox-pure™  unit and are less
soluble  at higher oxidation  states  under alkaline pH
conditions.   After  oxidation,  the  metals  will  tend to
precipitate as suspended soh'ds in  the perox-pure™  unit,
resulting in UV lamp scaling.  Removing these metals is
often advised; however, removal  may   depend on the
concentration of oxidizable  metals in the contaminated
water.   The economics of metals  removal  should be
compared to (1) predicted decreases  in contaminant removal
efficiency without metals  removal and (2) the economics of
more frequent UV lamp cleaning or replacement.  Metals
removed  from the influent by  precipitation  should be
containerized and analyzed to determine whether the metals
should be disposed of as hazardous or nonhazardous waste.

    If the contaminated water contains  bicarbonate and
carbonate ions at levels greater than 400 mg/L as calcium
carbonate, pH adjustments are typically performed in-line.
Carbonate and bicarbonate ions act as oxidant scavengers
and present an additional load to the treatment system. The
only  material handling  associated  with  pH  adjustment
involves handling  chemicals such as acids and bases; pH
adjustment should not create any waste streams requiring
disposal.
    Treated water can be disposed of either on or off site.
Examples of on-site disposal options for treated  water
include groundwater recharge or temporary on-site storage
for sanitary usage.  Examples of off-site disposal options
include discharge into surface water bodies, storm sewers,
and sanitary sewers.  Bioassay tests may be required in
addition  to routine chemical and physical analyses before
treated  water  is disposed  of.    Depending  on  permit
requirements and  treatment  unit operating  conditions,
treated water may require pH adjustment before discharge.

3.5 Personnel Requirements

    Personnel requirements for the perox-pure™ system are
minimal. Generally, one operator, trained by PSI, conducts
a daily 30-minute system check. The unit operator should be
capable of performing  the following:  (1) filling chemical
feed tanks and adjusting chemical flow rates to achieve
desired  doses;  (2)  operating  the control panel on  the
chemical oxidation unit; (3) collecting liquid samples  and
performing simple  physical and  chemical  analyses  and
measurements  (for  example,  pH,  hydrogen  peroxide
concentration,   temperature,   and   flow   rate);
(4) troubleshooting   minor  operational  problems;   and
(5) collecting samples for off-site analyses.  Analytical work
requiring more technical skills, such as VOC analyses, can be
performed by a local laboratory. The  frequency of sample
collection and analysis  will depend on site-specific permit
requirements.

    The  unit  operator should also have completed an
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) initial 40-hour
health and safety training  course and  an annual 8-hour
refresher course,  if  applicable,  before  operating  the
perox-pure™ system at hazardous waste sites.  The operator
also should participate in a medical monitoring program as
specified under OSHA requirements.

    For  remote sites,  where  daily system checks by an
operator are not feasible,  the perox-pure™ system can be
monitored remotely, or it can  be remotely operated  and
monitored. Remotely monitored systems can be connected
to devices that automatically dial a  telephone to notify
responsible parties at remote locations of alarm conditions.
Remotely operated and monitored systems are hard-wired
into centrally-located control panels or computers through
programmable logic controllers.

3.6 Potential Community Exposures

    The  perox-pure™  system  generates no  chemical or
particulate air emissions. Therefore, the potential for on-site
personnel or community exposure to airborne contaminants
is low.  If a system malfunction occurs,  alarms will sound,
and all components of the system will shut off automatically.
                                                         16

-------
Contaminated-water pumps can be hard-wired to the perox-
pure™  unit  control  panel  so  that  alarm  conditions
automatically  stop  flow through the  unit, reducing the
potential for a contaminated water release.

    Hydrogen peroxide  solution,  which  is  a  reactive
substance, presents the greatest chemical hazard associated
with the system.  However, when handled appropriately, the
potential for  exposure  to  hydrogen  peroxide by on-site
personnel is  low.   Acids,  bases, and hydrogen peroxide
required for the  perox-pure™ system are typically stored in
polyethylene totes housed in metal frames  or cages.  The
relatively small volumes of hydrogen peroxide used by the
system and secure chemical storage practices result hi a low
potential  threat  of  community  exposure to  hydrogen
peroxide.

3.7 Potential Regulatory Requirements

    This  subsection  discusses  regulatory requirements
pertinent  to  site  remediation  using  the  perox-pure™
technology.    Regulations  applicable  to  a  particular
application of this technology  will depend  on site-specific
remediation logistics and the type of contaminated water
being treated.   Table  3-1 provides  a summary of the
potentially applicable regulations discussed below.

    Depending on the characteristics of the water to be
treated, pretreatment or posttreatment may be required for
the successful operation of the perox-pure™ system.  For
example, solids may need to be prefiltered  using cartridge
filters, sand filters, or settling tanks.  Metals, such as iron
and manganese,  may need to be removed by precipitation.
Each  pretreatment or  posttreatment  process may  have
additional  regulatory  requirements  that   need  to be
determined  prior  to  use.   This subsection focuses on
regulations for the perox-pure™ system only.

3.7.1  Comprehensive   Environmental  Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act

    The  Comprehensive  Environmental   Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by
SARA of 1986, authorizes the federal government to respond
to releases into the environment of hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants that may present an imminent
and substantial danger to public health or welfare (Federal
Register, 1990a).  Remedial alternatives that significantly
reduce  the  volume,  toxicity,  or mobility  of hazardous
materials and  provide long-term  protection are preferred.
Selected remedies must also be cost effective and protective
of human health  and the environment.

    Contaminated water treatment using the perox-pure™
system will generally take place on site, while treated water
discharge may take place either on site or off site.  On-site
actions must meet all substantive state and federal applicable
 or  relevant  and  appropriate  requirements  (ARAR).
 Substantive requirements pertain directly to  actions or
 conditions  in  the environment  (for  example, effluent
 standards).   Off-site  actions  must comply with legally
 applicable substantive  and  administrative  requirements.
 Administrative requirements, such as permitting, facilitate
 the implementation of substantive requirements.

    EPA allows an ARAR to be waived for on-site actions.
 Six ARAR waivers are provided by CERCLA: (1) interim
 measures  waiver,  (2) equivalent standard of performance
 waiver, (3) greater  risk to  health and the environment
 waiver, (4) technical impracticability waiver, (5) inconsistent
 application of state standard waiver, and (6) fund-balancing
 waiver.   Justification  for   a  waiver  must be  clearly
 demonstrated (EPA, 1988).   Off-site remediations are not
 eligible for  ARAR  waivers,  and  all substantive  and
 administrative applicable requirements must be met.

    Additional regulations pertinent  to use  of the perox-
 pure™ system are discussed  below.  No air  emissions or
 residuals (such as sludge or spent filter media) are generated
 by  the perox-pure™  system.   Therefore, only regulations
 addressing contaminated water treatment and discharge are
 presented.

 3.7.2 Resource Conservation  and Recovery Act

    The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
 as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
 of 1984, regulates management and disposal  of municipal
 and industrial solid wastes. The EPA and RCRA-authorized
 states [listed in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part
 272] implement and enforce RCRA and state regulations.

    The perox-pure™ system  has been used to treat water
 contaminated with a variety of organic materials, including
 solvents,  pesticides, PAHs,  and petroleum hydrocarbons.
 Contaminated water treated by the perox-pure™ technology
 will most likely  be  hazardous  or sufficiently similar to
 hazardous  waste so   that   RCRA  standards will  be
 requirements. Criteria for identifying hazardous wastes are
 included   in  40   CFR  Part  261.     Pertinent RCRA
 requirements are  discussed below.

    If the contaminated water to be treated is determined to
be a hazardous waste, RCRA requirements for storage and
 treatment  must be met.  The  perox-pure™ system may
include tank storage.  Tank storage  of contaminated and
treated water (if the waters  are RCRA hazardous) must
meet tank storage requirements of 40 CFR Parts 264 or 265,
Subpart J.  Although ah- emissions are not associated with
the perox-pure™ system,  any fugitive emissions from storage
tank  vents  would be  subject to  forthcoming RCRA
regulations (see 40 CFR Part 269) on  air emissions from
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
When  promulgated,  these  requirements  will  include
                                                         17

-------
Tfb'0 3-1 R*gul*t!ora Summtry
fat
CERCLA
Applicability
Superfund sites
Application to perox-pure'" Chemical Oxidation
System
The Superfund program authorizes and regulates
Citation
40 CFR Part 300
         RCRA
         CWA
         SDWA
         TSCA
         FIFRA
         OSHA
Superfund and RCRA
sites
Discharges to surface
water bodies
Water discharges,
water reinjection, and
sole-source aquifer
and wellhead
protection
PCB contamination
         AEA and RCRA      Mixed wastes
Pesticides
AH remedial actions
the cleanup of environmental contamination. It
applies to all CERCLA site cleanups.

RCRA defines and regulates the treatment, storage,
and disposal of hazardous wastes. RCRA also
regulates corrective action at generator, treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities.

NPDES requirements of CWA apply to both
Superfund and RCRA sites where treated water is
discharged to surface water bodies. Pretreatment
standards apply to discharges to POTWs.

Maximum contaminant levels and contaminant level
goals should be considered when setting water
cleanup levels at RCRA corrective action and
Superfund sites.  (Water cleanup levels are also
discussed under RCRA and CERCLA.) Reinjection
of treated water would be subject to underground
injection control program requirements, and sole
source and protected wellhead water sources
would be subject to their respective control
programs.

If PCB-contaminated wastes are treated, TSCA
requirements should be considered when
determining cleanup standards and disposal
requirements. RCRA also regulates solid waste
containing PCBs.

AEA and RCRA requirements apply to the treatment,
storage, and disposal of mixed waste containing
both hazardous and radioactive components.
OSWER and DOE directives provide guidance for
addressing mixed waste.

FIFRA regulates pesticide manufacturing and
labeling. However, if pesticide-contaminated water
is treated, RCRA regulations will generally apply.

OSHA regulates on-site construction activities and
the health and safety of workers at hazardous waste
sites. Installation and operation of the system at
Superfund or RCRA sites must meet OSHA
requirements.
40 CFR Parts 260 to 270,
Part 280
40 CFR Parts 122 to 125,
Part 403
40 CFR Part 141
40 CFR Part 761
                                                                                                AEA and RCRA
                                                                                                40 CFR Part 165
29 CFR Parts 1900 to
1926
29 CFR Part 1910.120
(hazardous waste and
emergency response
operations)
         Note: Acronyms used in this table are defined in text.
standards for emissions from equipment leaks and process
vents.  Treatment  requirements included  in  40 Part 265,
Subpart Q  (Chemical, Physical, and Biological Treatment)
would also apply.  This subpart includes requirements for
automatic influent shut-off, waste analysis, and trial tests.

    The perox-pure'11'  system could also be used  to  treat
contaminated    water   at   RCRA-regulated   facilities.
                                        Requirements for  corrective action  at RCRA-regulated
                                        facilities will be included  in  40 CFR Part, 264 Subpart F
                                        (Regulated Units) and Subpart S (Solid Waste Management
                                        Units), as well as 40 CFR Part 280  (Underground Storage
                                        Tanks); these subparts generally will  apply to remediation at
                                        Superfund sites.  The  regulations include requirements for
                                        initiating  and  conducting  RCRA  corrective  actions,
                                        remediating groundwater,  and  ensuring  that corrective
                                                              18

-------
actions  comply  with  other  environmental  regulations
(Federal Register, 1990b).

    Water quality standards included in RCRA (such as
groundwater monitoring and protection standards), the Clean
Water Act (CWA),  and the Safe Drinking  Water  Act
(SDWA) would be appropriate cleanup standards and would
apply to discharges of treated water or reinjection of treated
groundwater (EPA,  1989).   The  CWA and SDWA are
discussed below.

3.7.3 Clean Water Act

    The  CWA is designed to  restore  and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological quality of navigable surface
waters by  establishing federal,  state,  and local discharge
standards.  If treated water is discharged to surface water
bodies or publicly-owned treatment works (POTW), CWA
regulations will apply.  On-site discharges to surface water
bodies must meet substantive National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System  (NPDES) requirements, but do  not
require a NPDES permit. Off-site discharges to a surface
water body require a NPDES permit and must meet NPDES
permit limits.  Discharge to a POTW is  considered an off-
site activity, even if an on-site sewer is used.  Therefore,
compliance with substantive and administrative requirements
of the national pretreatment program is required.  General
pretreatment regulations are included in 40 CFR Part 403.
Any  local  or  state   requirements,   such  as  state
antidegradation requirements, must also be identified  and
satisfied.

3.7.4 Safe Drinking Water Act

    The  SDWA,  as  amended hi 1986,  required EPA to
establish  regulations  to  protect human  health  from
contaminants in drinking water.  EPA has developed the
following programs to achieve this objective:  (1) drinking
water standards program, (2) underground injection control
program,   and  (3)   sole-source  aquifer  and wellhead
protection programs.

    SDWA primary,  or health-based, and secondary,  or
aesthetic, MCLs will generally apply as cleanup standards for
water that is, or may be, used for drinking water supply.  In
some cases, such as when multiple contaminants are present,
alternate  concentration  limits  (ACL)  may  be  used.
CERCLA and RCRA standards and guidance should be
used hi establishing ACLs (EPA,  1987a).

    Water discharge through injection wells is regulated by
the underground injection control program.  Injection wells
are categorized hi Class I through V, depending on their
construction and use.  Reinjection of treated water involves
Class IV  (reinjection) or Class V (recharge) wells and
should meet requirements for well construction, operation,
and closure.
    The  sole-source  aquifer  protection  and  wellhead
 protection programs are designed to protect specific drinking
 water supply sources. If such a source is to be remediated
 using the perox-pure™ system, appropriate program officials
 should be notified, and any potential regulatory requirements
 should  be identified.  State groundwater antidegradation
 requirements and water quality standards may also apply.

 3.7.5 Toxic Substances Control Act

    Testing, premanufacture notification, and record-keeping
 requirements for toxic substances are regulated under the
 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). TSCA also includes
 storage requirements for PCBs (see  40 CFR Part 761.65).
 The perox-pure™ system may  be  used  to treat  water
 contaminated with  PCBs,  and PCB  storage requirements
 would apply to pretreatment storage  of PCB-contaminated
 water. The SDWA MCL for PCBs is 0.05 /*g/L; this MCL
 would generally be the treatment standard for groundwater
 remediation at Superfund sites and RCRA corrective action
 sites. RCRA land disposal requirements for PCBs (see 40
 CFR Part  268) may  also  apply,  depending  on  PCB
 concentrations.   For  example,  liquid  hazardous  waste
 containing PCB concentrations between 50 and 499 ppm that
 will be treated by incineration or an equivalent method will
 meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 761.70.

 3.7.6 Mixed  Waste  Regulations

    Mixed waste contains  both radioactive and hazardous
 components, as defined by the Atomic Energy Act (AEA)
 and RCRA, and is subject to the requirements of both acts.
 When  the application of both  regulations results  hi a
 situation that is inconsistent with the AEA (for example, an
 increased  likelihood  of  radioactive  exposure),  ABA
 requirements supersede RCRA requirements.  Use of the
 perox-pure™ system at sites with radioactive contamination
 might involve the treatment or generation of mixed waste.

    The  EPA OSWER, hi conjunction  with the  Nuclear
 Regulatory Commission, has issued  several directives  to
 assist in the identification, treatment, and disposal of low-
 level radioactive, mixed waste.  Various OSWER directives
 include guidance on defining, identifying, and disposing of
 commercial, mixed,  low-level  radioactive  and hazardous
 waste (EPA, 1987b). If the perox-pure™ system is used to
 treat low-level  mixed wastes,  these  directives should be
 considered. If high-level mixed waste or  transuranic mixed
waste is treated, internal orders from  the U.S. Department
 of Energy (DOE) should be considered when developing a
 protective remedy (DOE, 1988).

3.7.7   Federal   Insecticide,   Fungicide,    and
Rodenticide Act

    The   perox-pure™  technology   can   treat  water
 contaminated with  pesticides.   EPA regulates pesticide
                                                        19

-------
product sale, distribution, and use through product licensing
or registration under the authority of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (see 40 CFR Part
165).  Use of a pesticide product in a manner inconsistent
with its labeling violates FIFRA. Compliance with FIFRA
by following  labeling directions may not  be required at
Supcrfund or RCRA corrective action sites, because the
pesticide may be a RCRA hazardous waste at that point. In
such cases, requirements for hazardous wastes containing
pesticide constituents must be met.

3.7.8 Occupational Safety and Health Act

    OSHA regulations, contained  in 29 CFR  Parts  1900
through 1926, are designed to protect worker health and
safety.  Both Superfund and RCRA corrective actions must
meet  OSHA  requirements,  particularly  Part  1910.120,
Hazardous Waste  Operations  and Emergency Response.
Part 1926, Safety and Health Regulations for Construction,
applies to any on-site construction activities. For example,
electric  utility  hookups for the perox-pure™ system must
comply  with Part  1926, Subpart  K, Electrical.  Product
chemicals,  such as hydrogen peroxide, sulfuric acid, and
sodium hydroxide, used with the perox-pure™ system must be
managed  in accordance  with OSHA  requirements  (for
example, Part  1926, Subpart D, Occupational Health and
Environmental Controls, and Subpart H, Materials Handling,
Storage, and Disposal).  Any more stringent state or local
requirements must also be met.
                                                         20

-------
                                                     Section 4
                                               Economic Analysis
    This section presents cost estimates for using the perox-
pure™ system to treat groundwater. Two cases, based on
groundwater characteristics, are presented.  In Case 1, the
groundwater contains both contaminants that are difficult to
oxidize and contaminants that are easy to oxidize. In Case 2,
the groundwater contains only contaminants that are easy to
oxidize. In each case, treatment costs are compared at three
different flow rates:  10 gpm, 50 gpm, and 100 gpm.

    Cost  estimates  presented  in  this  section  are  based
primarily on data compiled during the SITE  demonstration.
Costs have been placed in 12 categories applicable to typical
cleanup  activities at  Superfund and RCRA sites (Evans,
1990).  Costs are presented hi April 1993 dollars and are
considered  to be order-of-magnitude  estimates  with  an
accuracy of plus 50 percent and minus 30 percent.

    Table 4-1 presents a breakdown of costs for the 12
categories for Case 1, and Table 4-2 presents those costs for
Case 2.  The tables  also  present total one-time costs  and
total annual O&M costs;  the total costs for  a hypothetical,
long-term, groundwater remediation project;  the net present
values of the long-term project; and the costs per 1,000
gallons of water treated.  Both tables highlight in boldface
type the direct cost associated with using the perox-pure™
system.  Each table  concludes with a presentation of total
direct one-time costs, total direct annual O&M costs,  and
the direct costs per 1,000 gallons of water treated.

4.1 Basis of Economic Analysis

    A  number of factors affect  the  estimated costs of
treating  groundwater  with  the  perox-pure™  chemical
oxidation system. Factors affecting costs generally include
flow  rate,  type  and  concentration  of  contaminants,
groundwater chemistry, physical site conditions, geographical
site location,  contaminated groundwater plume size, and
treatment goals.

    The perox-pure™ technology can treat several types of
liquid wastes,  including contaminated groundwater, landfill
leachate,  and  industrial wastewater.     Contaminated
groundwater was selected for this economic analysis because
 it is commonly found at Superfund and RCRA corrective
 action sites  and  because this  waste treatment  scenario
 involves  most  of the cost categories.  In  addition,  two
 groundwater remediation cases  based  on  groundwater
 characteristics  are analyzed.  In Case 1, the groundwater
 contains five contaminants, three  of which are difficult to
 oxidize and two of which are easy to oxidize. In Case 2, the
 groundwater contains two contaminants that are easy to
 oxidize.    The following  presents  the  assumptions  and
 conditions as they apply to each case. Next, the assumptions
 and conditions  used only for Case 1 are presented, and then
 those used only for Case 2.

    For   each   case,  this  analysis  assumes  that  the
 perox-pure™ system will treat contaminated groundwater on
 a continuous flow cycle, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
 Based on this assumption, during a 1-year period, the 10-
 gpm unit will treat about 5.2 million gallons, the 50-gpm unit
 will treat about 26 million gallons, and the 100-gpm unit will
 treat about 52 million gallons.  Because most groundwater
 remediation projects  are  long-term, this analysis assumes
 that a treatment project will last 50 years using the 10-gpm
 flow rate, 10 years using the 50-gpm flow rate, and 5 years
 at the  100-gpm flow rate.  Treating groundwater at these
 rates involves remediation of a contaminated groundwater
 plume that contains approximately  260 million gallons of
 water.  While it is difficult in practice to determine both the
 volume of groundwater to treat and the actual duration of a
 project, these figures  are  used  in order to  perform  this
 economic analysis.

    The total costs for a groundwater remediation project
 for each case and  each flow rate scenario are presented as
 future values. Using the time, periods described above,  this
 analysis assumes a 5 percent inflation rate to  estimate the
 total costs. The future values are then presented as a net
present value using a  discount rate of 5 percent. A higher
 discount rate will make the initial costs weigh more heavily
in the calculation,  and a lower discount rate will make the
future operating costs weigh more heavily.  Because the costs
of demobilization will occur at the end of the project,  the
appropriate future values  of those costs presented in  the
tables were used in calculating the final values. The costs
                                                         21

-------
Ttbta 4-1 Costs Associated with the perox-pure™ Technology - Case 1
                                                                           Estimated Costs (1993 $)
Cost Categories
SHa Preparation (a)
Administrative
Trfftibility Study
System Design
Mobflizttion
Permitting and Regulatory Requirements (a)
Capital Equipment (a)
Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Piping
Shatter Building
Treatment Equipment
AuxiHary Equipment
Startup (a)
Labor (b)
Operations Stiff (c)
Health and Safety Refresher Course
Consumables and Supplies (b)
Hydrogen Peroxide
Suffurfc Add
Sodium Hydroxide
Cartridge Filters
Carbon Columns
PPE
Disposal Drums for PPE
UV Lamps
Sampling Supplies
Propane
Utilities (b)
Treatment System
Auxiliary Equipment
Effluent Treatment and Disposal (c)
Residuals and Waste Shipping and
Handling (b)
Analytical Services (b)
Maintenance and Modifications (b)
Treatment System
Auxiliary Equipment
Demobilization (a)
Trettment System
Alt Other
Total One-Time Costs
Total Annual O&M Costs
Qroundwatar Remediation:
Total Costs (d,e)
Net Present Value (0
Costs per 1,000 Gallons (g)
Tottt pef ox-pure" direct one-time costs
Total ptfox-pure*1 direct O&M costs
Costs per 1,000 Gallons—Direct Costs (g)
10gpm
$168,000




41,000
819,000




5,000
39,000


13,000










12,000


0
6,000

24,000
22,000


40,000


$1,073,000
$116,000

$25,776,000
$9,411,000
$36
$144,000
$64,000
$19


35,000
5,000
120,000
8,000


146,000
455,000
110,000
108,000


36,000
3,000

450
600
2,000
200
1,000
600
50
4,500
1,000
3,000

9,200
2,800





11,OOO
10,800

10,OOO
30,000









SOgpm
$171,000




45,000
906,000




5,000
39,000


30,000










60,000


0
6,000

24,000
29,000


40,000


$1,167,000
$188,000

$3,558,000
$2,747,000
$11
$227,000
$125,000
$5

35,000
5,000
123,000
8,000


158,000
455,000
185,000
108,000


36,000
3,000

2,200
3,000
10,000
200
1,000
600
50
9,000
1,000
3,000

45,900
13,800





18,500
10,800

10,000
30,000









100 gpm
$171,000




51,000
1,015,000



35,000
5,000
123,000
8,000


158,000
455,000
290,000

5,000
39,000


54,000










119,000


0
8,000

24,000
40,000


40,000


$1,283,000
$285,000

$2,863,000
$2,479,000
$10
$342,000
$205,000
$5
112,000


36,000
3,000

4,450
6,000
20,000
200
1,000
600
50
18,000
1,000
3,000

91,700
27,500





29,000
11,200

1O,000
30,000









   Notes:
   Hsms In bold denote pernx-pure™ system direct costs
   a    One-time costs
   b    Annual O&M costs
   c    See text for explanation of these costs
   d    Future value using annual inflation rate of 5 percent
   0    To complete this project, it is assumed that the 10-gpm flow rate will take 50 years, the 50-gpm flow rate will take 10 years, and the
        100-gpm flow rate w!H take 5 years to treat 260 million gallons total.
   f    Annual discount rate of 5 percent
   g    Presented as a net present value using the same assumptions used elsewhere in this table.
                                                                  22

-------
Table 4-2 Costs Associated w/th the perox-puro"4 Technology - Case 2
Cost Categories
Site Preparation (a)
Administrative
Treatability Study
System Design
Mobilization
Permitting and Regulatory Requirements (a)
Capital Equipment (a)
Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Piping
Shelter Building
Treatment Equipment
Auxiliary Equipment
Startup (a)
Labor (b)
Operations Staff (c)
Health and Safety Refresher Course
Consumables and Supplies (b)
Hydrogen Peroxide
Sulfuric Acid
Sodium Hydroxide
Cartridge Filters
Carbon Columns
PPE
Disposal Drums for PPE
UV Lamps
Sampling Supplies
Propane
Utilities (b)
Treatment System
Auxiliary Equipment
Effluent Treatment and Disposal (c)
Residuals and Waste Shipping and
Handling (b)
Analytical Services (b)
Maintenance and Modifications (b)
Treatment System
Auxiliary Equipment
Demobilization (a)
Treatment System
All Other
Total One-Time Costs
Total Annual O&M Costs
Groundwater Remediation:
Total Costs (d,e)
Net Present Value (f)
Costs per 1,000 Gallons (g)
Total perox-purem direct one-time costs
Total perox-pure"' direct O&M costs
Costs per 1,000 Gallons-Direct Costs (g)

Wgpm
$168,000




38,000
764,000




5,000
39,000


10,000










4,000


0
6,000

24,000
16,000


40,000


$1,015,000
$99,000

$25,159,000
$8,091,000
$31
$84,000
$49,OOO
$15
Estimated Costs


35,000
5,000
120,000
8,000


146,000
455,000
55,OOO
108,000


36,000
3,000

3OO
600
2,000
200
1,000
600
50
1,500
1,000
3,000

3,100
900





5,500
10,800

10,000
30,000









(1993 $)
500pm
$171,000




39,000
776,000




5,000
39,000


22,000










4,000


0
6,000

24,000
16,000


40,000


$1,032,000
$111,000

$2,453,000
$1,894,000
$7
684,000
$61,000
$3

35,000
5,OOO
123,000
8,000


158,000
455,000
55,000
108,000


36,000
3,000

1,600
3,OOO
10,000
200
1,000
600
50
1,50O
1,000
3,000

3,100
900





5,500
10,800

10,000
30,000










100 gpm
$171,000




39,000
780,000




5,000
39,000


38,000










8,000


0
8,000

24,000
17,000


40,000


$1,036,000
$134,000

$1,787,000
$1,547,000
$6
$84,OOO
$80,000
$2

35,000
5,000
123,000
8,000


158,000
455,000
55,000
112,000


36,000
3,000

3,100
6,000
20,000
200
1,000
600
50
3,OOO
1,000
3,000

6,100
1,800





5,500
11,200

10,000
30,000









  Hems in bold denote perox-pure™ system direct costs
  a    One-time costs
  b    Annual O&M costs
       See text for explanation of these costs
       Future value using annual inflation rate of 5 percent
       To complete this project, it is assumed that the 10-gpm flow rate will take 50 years, the 50-gpm flow rate will take 10 years, and the
       100-gpm flow rate will take 5 years to treat 260 million gallons total.
       Annual discount rate of 5 percent
       Presented as a net present value using the same assumptions used elsewhere in this table.
                                                                23

-------

per 1,000 gallons treated are derived from the net present
values.   Capital equipment is not  depreciated in  this
economic analysis.

    Further assumptions about groundwater conditions and
treatment for each case include the following:

    •   Any suspended solids present in groundwater are
        removed before entering the perox-pure™ system.

    •   Alkalinity is about 250 mg/L as calcium carbonate.

    •   The influent has a pH of 8 that is lowered to 5.5 via
        pretreatment.

    •   The treated effluent has a pH between 4 and 5 that
        is adjusted to between 6.5 and 8.5 via posttreatment
        to  meet discharge standards.

    This analysis assumes that treated water for each case
will be discharged to surface water,  and MCLs specified in
the SDWA are the treatment target levels. Based on results
of the SITE demonstration, the perox-pure™ system should
achieve these levels.

    The following assumptions were also made for each case
in this analysis:

    •   The site is  a Superfund site located in a rural area
        of the Midwest.

    •   Contaminated water is located in a shallow aquifer.

    •   The  groundwater contains negligible amounts  of
        iron  and  manganese  and  will   not  require
        pretreatment for metals.

    •   Suitable site access roads exist.

    •   Utility lines, such as electricity and telephone lines,
        exist overhead on site.

    •  A 4,000-square-foot building will be needed  to
        house the treatment system and auxiliary equipment
        for all three flow rate scenarios.

    •  The treatment system operates automatically.

    •  One  technician will be  required to  operate  the
        equipment, collect  all  required   samples,  and
        perform equipment maintenance and minor repairs.

    •  One treated water sample and one untreated water
        sample will be collected daily  to monitor system
        performance.
    •   Treated and untreated water  samples  will be
        collected monthly and analyzed off site for VOCs.

    •   Labor costs associated with major repairs are not
        included.

    •   PSI will dispose of spent UV lamps from the perox-
        pure™ system at no cost.

    For Case 1, the chemical feed  rates and the hydraulic
retention time required to meet treatment goals listed in
Appendix B were  estimated based  on the  perox-pure™
system performance during Runs 10,11, and 12 of the SITE
demonstration.  Based on the demonstration, VOC levels in
the  groundwater,   and  perox-pure™  system  operating
conditions assumed for Case 1 include the following:

    •   Chloroform at 200

    •   DCA at 150

    •   TCA at 130

    •   TCE at 700

    •   PCE at 100 |tg/L

    •   Hydrogen peroxide dose of 85 mg/L

    •   Hydraulic retention time of 0.75 minute

    For  Case 2, the chemical feed rates and hydraulic
retention time  required to meet treatment goals listed in
Appendix B were estimated based on the  perox-pure™
system performance  during Run 8.     Based  on  the
demonstration, the VOC levels in the groundwater, and
perox-pure™ system operations include the following:

    •   TCE at 1,070 /ig/L

    •   PCE at 108

    •   Hydrogen peroxide dose of 60 mg/L

    •   Hydraulic retention time of 0.05 minute

4.2 Cost  Categories

    Cost data associated with the  perox-pure™ technology
have been assigned to the following 12 categories: (1) site
preparation; (2) permitting and regulatory requirements; (3)
capital equipment; (4) startup; (5) labor; (6) consumables
and supplies; (7) utilities; (8) effluent treatment and disposal;
(9) residuals and waste shipping and handling; (10) analytical
services; (11) maintenance and modifications;  and  (12)
demobilization. Costs associated  with each category are
presented in the sections that follow. Each section presents
                                                          24

-------
 the costs that are identical for each case.  If applicable,
 differences between the costs of Case 1 and Case 2 are then
 discussed.  Some categories  end with a summary  of  the
 significant costs within the  category.   All direct costs
 associated with operating the  perox-pure™  system  are
 identified as perox-pure™ direct costs; all costs associated
 with the hypothetical remediation and auxiliary equipment
 are identified as groundwater remediation costs.

 4.2.1 Site Preparation Costs

     Site preparation costs include administrative, treatability
 study, system  design, and mobilization  costs.  For this
 analysis, administrative costs, such as legal searches,  access
 rights, and other site planning activities, are associated with
 a groundwater remediation project and are estimated to be
 $35,000.

    A treatability  study  will need to be performed to
 determine the appropriate specifications of the perox-pure™
 system for the site as well as the amounts of chemicals and
 reagents needed for optimal performance.  PSI estimates the
 cost for this study, which is directly associated with operating
 the perox-pure™ treatment system, to be about $5,000.

    System design costs include designing the site layout and
 the treatment system operations and are associated with a
 groundwater remediation project. Design costs are typically
 20 percent of the total construction costs. Construction costs
 include constructing a shelter building for the treatment and
 auxiliary equipment and installing extraction wells and  piping
 (see Capital Equipment Costs).  Construction costs are
 about $600,000 for the 10-gpm flow rate scenario and about
 $613,000 for  the  50- and  100-gpm flow rate scenarios.
 Therefore, design costs would be about $120,000 for the 10-
 gpm flow rate scenario and about $123,000 for the 50- and
 100-gpm flow rate scenarios.

    Mobilization involves transporting all equipment  to the
 site, assembling it, performing optimization and shakedown
 activities, and operator training.  Transportation costs are
 site-specific and will depend on the  location of  the site in
 relation  to  all  equipment  vendors.  The skid-mounted
 perox-pure™  system  is  delivered  to each  site  hi one
 semitrailer from Tucson, Arizona.   PSI will  position the
 system and perform optimization and shakedown activities as
 part of the mobilization. Initial operator training is needed
 to ensure safe, economical, and efficient  operation of the
 system.  PSI estimates mobilization costs to be about $8,000
 and to take about 1 week to complete.

    For each case, total site preparation costs are estimated
to be $168,000 for  the  10-gpm  flow rate scenario and
$171,000 for the 50-  and 100-gpm  flow rate  scenarios.
System design constitutes about 71 percent of the total site
preparation costs, and administrative costs make up about 20
 percent.  As such, about 7 percent of the site preparation
 costs are associated with the perox-pure™ treatment system.

 4.2.2 Permitting and Regulatory Requirements
 Costs
     Permitting  and regulatory costs  depend  on whether
 treatment is performed  at  a  Superfund  or a  RCRA
 corrective action site and on how treated effluent and any
 solid wastes generated are disposed  of.  Superfund sites
 require remedial actions to be consistent with ARARs  of
 environmental laws, ordinances, regulations, and statutes,
 including federal, state, and local standards and criteria.  In
 general, ARARs must be determined on a site-specific basis.
 RCRA corrective action sites require additional monitoring
 records  and sampling  protocols, which can increase the
 permitting and regulatory costs by an additional 5 percent.

     Permitting and regulatory costs are associated with a
 groundwater remediation project and are assumed to be
 about 5 percent of the total capital equipment costs for a
 treatment operation that is  part  of  a  Superfund  site
 remediation project. This estimate does not include annual
 discharge  permit  costs,  which  may  vary   significantly
 depending on state and local requirements.

     For   Case 1,  permitting   and  regulatory  costs  are
 estimated to be $41,000 for the 10-gpm flow rate scenario;
 $45,000 for the 50-gpm flow rate scenario; and $51,000 for
 the  100-gpm flow rate scenario.  For Case 2, these costs are
 estimated to be $38,000 for the 10-gpm, and $39,000 for the
 50-  and 100-gpm flow rate scenarios.  The costs hi Case 2
 are similar because total capital equipment costs are nearly
 the same for each flow rate. The difference in costs between
 the two cases is due to the lower perox-pure™ system capital
 equipment costs associated with Case 2.

 4.2.3 Capital Equipment Costs

    Capital equipment  costs include  installing extraction
 wells; constructing a building to shelter the treatment and
 auxiliary  equipment; and  purchasing  and  installing all
 treatment  equipment,  including auxiliary equipment and
 monitoring equipment.

    Extraction well installation costs are associated with  a
 groundwater remediation project and include installing the
 well and pump and connecting the pumps, piping, and valves
 from the wells to  the perox-pure™ system.  This  analysis
 assumes that four, 150-foot extraction wells will be required
 to maintain the flow rate in each scenario. Extraction wells
 can be installed at about $150 per foot per well. Total well
 construction costs for each case will be about $90,000.

    Pumps, piping, and valve connection costs are associated
with a groundwater remediation project and will depend on
the following factors: the number of extraction wells needed,
                                                         25

-------
the flow rate, the distance of the extraction wells from the
treatment system, and the climate of the area. This analysis
assumes that four extraction wells are located about 200 feet
from the pcrox-pure™ system. Four 2.5-gpm pumps will be
required to maintain a 10-gpm flow rate. The total cost for
these four pumps is about $8,000. Four 12.5-gpm pumps will
be required to maintain a 50-gpm flow rate, at a total cost
of about $20,000. Four 25-gpm pumps will be required  to
maintain a  100-gpm flow rate, at a total  cost of about
$20,000. Piping and valve connection costs are about $60 per
foot, including  underground installation.  Therefore,  total
piping costs will be an additional $48,000.

    A building  will need to be constructed to  shelter the
perox-pure™ system and all auxiliary equipment, because the
site  is  assumed to be  located  in  the Midwest,  and
remediation will likely  be  conducted  in  adverse weather
conditions. The building will require about 4,000 square feet
and will  cost   about  $100  per  square foot, including
construction and materials, for a total cost of $400,000.
Costs associated with designing the building are included in
the  system design  costs  (see Site Preparation Costs).
Heating costs  included in this analysis assume that the
building site is remote and will require a propane or liquid
petroleum gas heating system with a 3,000-gallon tank and
fuel delivery service.  The propane tank, heating unit, and
duct work will cost about $25,000 to install.  Finally, utility
connections to  the building are estimated to cost $30,000.
Total building costs for each case will be about $455,000 for
each  flow  rate scenario  and are  associated  with   a
groundwater remediation project.

    Treatment equipment typically consists of chemical feed
modules  and   the   skid-mounted  components  of the
perox-pure™ system.  The cost  of the perox-pure™ unit will
vary depending on the size of the unit needed. PSI identifies
unit sizes by their kW usage. To meet the treatment goals
for Case 1,  PSI estimates that the  10-gpm unit will require
15 kW,  the 50-gpm unit will require 75 kW, and the 100-gpm
unit  will  require  150 kW.     However,  the  nearest
commercially available perox-pure™ units PSI offers are  30
kW, 90 kW, and 180  kW  respectively.  These will cost
$100,000,  $175,000,  and   $280,000  respectively.    PSI
recommends turning off any lamps in excess of the necessary
electrical power.

    To  meet the treatment goals of Case 2, PSI estimates
that the 10-gpm unit will require 1 kW, the 50-gpm unit will
require 5 kW,  and  the 100-gpm unit  will require 10 kW.
However, the nearest commercially available unit PSI offers
is 10 kW.  Therefore, perox-pure™ unit cost will be $45,000
for each flow rate scenario of Case 2.

    This analysis assumes that  the site treatment scenarios
for each case will include acid feed and base feed modules.
The chemical  feed  modules consist  of  one 2,000-gallon
hydrogen peroxide tank and two feed pumps, one 500-gallon
acid storage tank and two feed pumps, and one 500-gallon
base storage tank and two feed pumps. The total additional
cost for all three chemical feed modules for each case will be
about $10,000.

    Auxiliary  equipment  considered in this  analysis  is
associated with a groundwater  remediation  project and
includes one sedimentation tank, two equalization tanks, two
cartridge filters, one filter press, and monitoring equipment.
One  2,000-gallon sedimentation  tank  will  be  located
downstream of the extraction wells and upstream of the
cartridge filters to allow solids to settle out before treatment.
This tank costs about $5,000.  Two 5,000-gallon equalization
tanks  are  needed  to  minimize  fluctuations  in  VOC
concentrations. While one tank is being filled, the other will
be emptied. These tanks will be located downstream of the
cartridge filters. Both equalization tanks will cost a total of
about $14,000.  All tanks used during the remediation are
assumed to have closed tops with vents.  A venting system
that includes duct work and carbon columns will be needed
to eliminate fugitive emissions from the tanks.  This venting
system will cost about $25,000.

    Filtration  will be required to remove any suspended
solids from the sedimentation tank effluent. Two cartridge
filters  will  be installed  on  the  perox-pure™ feed line.
Cartridges cost about $2,000 each for the 10- and 50-gpm
flow rate scenarios, for a total cost of $4,000. Cartridges
cost about $4,000 each for the 100-gpm flow rate scenario,
for a total cost of $8,000.  The costs of replacement filters
are included in Consumables and Supplies Costs.

    A filter press will be needed to dewater the sediment
collected in the sedimentation tank and any other tanks that
may accumulate sediment. The  size of the filter press will
be determined after a bench-scale study is performed. This
analysis assumes that a 4-cubic-foot filter press will  be used,
at a cost of about $50,000.

    Monitoring equipment includes a spectrophotometer to
measure hydrogen peroxide  concentration, a  pH meter, a
thermometer, and other as needed. This equipment can be
purchased for about $10,000.

    Total auxiliary equipment costs, including venting duct
work,  for the 10- and 50-gpm flow rate scenarios will  be
about $108,000. The total auxiliary equipment costs for the
100-gpm flow rate scenario will be about $112,000.

    For Case  1, total capital costs will be about $819,000 for
the 10-gpm flow rate scenario; $906,000 for the 50-gpm flow
rate scenario; and $1,015,000 for  the 100-gpm flow rate
scenario.  Of these costs, only  the perox-pure™ and feed
modules  are  associated with operating the perox-pure™
system. The costs of these components account for  about 13
percent  of total capital  costs for the 10-gpm flow rate
scenario, 20 percent for the 50-gpm flow rate scenario, and
                                                          26

-------
19 percent for the 100-gpm flow rate scenario. In addition,
the shelter building accounts for about 56 percent of the
total capital costs for the 10-gpm flow rate scenario, about
50 percent for the 50-gpm flow rate scenario, and about 45
percent for the  100-gpm flow rate scenario.

    For Case 2, total capital costs will be about $764,000 for
the 10-gpm flow rate scenario; $776,000 for the 50-gpm flow
rate scenario;  and $780,000 for the 100-gpm flow rate
scenario.  Of these costs, only the perox-pure™ system and
feed modules are associated with operating the perox-pure™
system. The costs of these components account for about 7
percent of total capital costs for the each flow rate scenario.
In  addition,  the shelter building accounts for about  60
percent of the total capital costs for the 10-gpm flow rate
scenario, about 59 percent for the 50-gpm flow rate scenario,
and about 58 percent for the  100-gpm flow rate scenario.
The cost differences between the two cases are due to lower
system costs associated with Case 2.

4.2.4 Startup Costs

    Startup costs include the cost of developing a health and
safety program. For each case,  developing a health and
safety program  will also include providing a 40-hour health
and safety training course.  This cost is associated with a
groundwater remediation project and is estimated to cost
about $5,000.

4.2.5 Labor Costs

    Labor costs include the total staff needed for operating
and maintaining the perox-pure™ system, conducting  an
annual  health and safety refresher course, and  medical
monitoring.  The labor wage 'rates provided in this analysis
do not include overhead or fringe benefits.  Once the system
is functioning, it is assumed to operate continuously at the
designed flow rate, except during routine maintenance. One
operator will monitor the equipment, make any required
hydrogen peroxide dose  and  pH adjustments, perform
routine  maintenance, and perform routine monitoring and
sample analysis. PSI estimates that under normal operating
conditions, an operator will  be required to work only 3.5
hours per week. However, because finding a person willing
to work for  this short period of time may be difficult; this
analysis assumes that the operator will work 8 hours during
the weekdays, and 2 hours, at time and one-half, during each
day of the weekend. Annual staff costs for each case will be
about $36,000.   The  annual health and  safely refresher
course  and  medical  monitoring  are  associated with  a
groundwater remediation project and will cost about $3,000
per person.

    For each case, total annual  labor costs will be  about
$39,000.  Of these costs, about 92 percent is associated with
operating the perox-pure™ treatment system.
4.2.6 Consumables and Supplies Costs

    Consumables.  and  supplies  costs  include  hydrogen
peroxide, sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide solutions for
pH adjustment, cartridge filters, activated carbon columns,
disposable personal protective equipment (PPE) and PPE
disposal drums, UV lamps, sampling supplies, and propane.
Costs of these items are discussed below.

    Hydrogen peroxide is commercially available in solutions
of 30 to 50 percent by weight.  It can be purchased hi bulk,
delivered to the site when needed, and stored in a 2,000-
gallon  tank  (see  Capital Equipment Costs).   Hydrogen
peroxide has a shelf life of over 1 year and a density of
about 10 pounds per gallon. A 50 percent solution can be
purchased for about $0.12 per pound including delivery; this
cost is associated with operating the perox-pure™ treatment
system.   The  quantities of hydrogen peroxide consumed
depend on the system flow rate and the waste characteristics.
Based  on the SITE demonstration,  the annual hydrogen
peroxide costs for  the 10-gpm flow rate scenario would be
about  $450  for Case 1  and  $300 for Case 2.  Annual
hydrogen peroxide costs for the 50-gpm flow rate scenario
would be about $2,200 for Case 1 and $1,600 for Case 2. For
the 100-gpm flow rate scenario, annual hydrogen peroxide
costs would be  about $4,450 for Case 1  and  $3,100 for
Case 2.

    This analysis assumes sulfuric acid will be used to adjust
pH before treatment, and sodium hydroxide will be used to
adjust pH after treatment. In addition, this analysis assumes
that a 93 percent solution of sulfuric acid can be purchased
in bulk, delivered to the site when needed, and stored in a
500-gallon tank (see Capital Equipment Costs). Sulfuric acid
has a shelf life of over 1 year and a density of 15 pounds per
gallon. It can be purchased for about $0.09 per pound. The
quantities of sulfuric acid consumed depend on the flow rate
and the initial pH of the contaminated groundwater.  Based
on the SITE demonstration, annual sulfuric acid costs for the
10-gpm flow rate scenario would be about $600 for each
case.  Annual acid costs for the 50-gpm flow rate scenario
would be about $3,000 for each case.  For the 100-gpm flow
rate scenario, annual acid costs would be about $6,000 for
each case.

    Sodium hydroxide solution has a shelf life of over 1 year
and a density of 15  pounds per gallon. A 50 percent solution
of sodium hydroxide can be purchased for about $0.10 per
pound.  Based on the SITE demonstration,  annual sodium
hydroxide costs for the 10-gpm flow rate scenario would be
about $2,000 for each case.  Annual sodium hydroxide costs
for the 50-gpm flow rate scenario would be about $10,000 for
each case. For the 100-gpm flow rate scenario, the annual
sodium hydroxide  costs would be about $20,000 for each
case.
                                                         27

-------
    This analysis assumes two cartridge filters capable of
screening material larger than 3 micrometers will be installed
upstream of the perox-pure™ unit and downstream of the
sedimentation tank.   These  filters should  remove  any
suspended  solids in  the  sedimentation  tank effluent.
Replacement frequency  depends on the quality  of the
groundwater to be treated and the flow rate. However, this
analysis assumes one filter will need to be changed every 3
months and is associated with a groundwater remediation
project.  The dual filter system allows one filter to be used
while the other  is replaced.  For each case, replacement
filters will cost about $50 each or $200 per year.

    Activated carbon columns on the venting system for the
sedimentation and equalization tanks are assumed to  be
replaced every  6  months  and  are  associated with  a
groundwatcr   remediation  project.    For  each   case,
replacement columns cost about $500 each, for a total of
$1,000 per  year.  The actual  rate at which these  carbon
columns  will   need  replacement  depends   on   the
concentrations of VOCs in the water being treated.

    PPE is associated with  a groundwater remediation
project and typically consists of nondisposable and disposable
equipment.  Nondisposable equipment consists of steel-toe
boots  and  a  full-face air  respirator.   For each  case,
disposable  PPE  includes latex inner gloves,  nitrile outer
gloves, and safety glasses. Disposable PPE for each case is
assumed to cost  about $600 per year for the one operator,
regardless of flow rate. Disposable PPE is assumed to be
hazardous and will need to be disposed of in 24-gallon fiber
drums.   Any potentially hazardous wastes  will also  be
disposed of in these drums.  One drum is assumed to be
filled every 3 months. Drums cost about $12 each. For each
case, total annual drum costs will be about $50.

    UV lamp usage is associated with operating the perox-
pure™ treatment system.  PSI warranties its UV lamps for
3,000 hours of use.  At this rate, the lamps will need to be
changed three times per  year.  Five-kW lamps cost about
$500 each and 15-kW lamps cost about $600. For Case 1,
three 5-kW lamps are used during treatment in the 10-gpm
unit for a total annual cost of $4,500.  Five 15-kW lamps are
used in the 50-gpm unit  for a total annual cost of $9,000.
Ten 15-kW lamps are used in the 100-gpm unit for a total
annual cost of $18,000. For Case 2,  one 5-kW lamp is used
during treatment in the 10- and 50-gpm units for a total
annual cost of $1,500. Two 5-kW lamps are used in the 100-
gpm unit for a total annual cost of $3,000. PSI will dispose
of used UV lamps at no cost.

    Sampling supplies  are associated with  a  groundwater
remediation project  and consist of sampling bottles and
containers,  ice, labels,  shipping containers,  and laboratory
forms  for  off-site  analyses.    For  routine monitoring,
laboratory glassware will also be needed.  The number and
types of sampling supplies will be based on the analyses to
be performed. Costs for laboratory analyses are presented
in the Analytical Services Costs section. For each case, these
costs are assumed to be $1,000 per year.

    Propane  use   is  associated  with  a groundwater
remediation project and will be needed to heat the shelter
building  during the colder months of the  year.  Annual
propane  usage will be based on the square footage of the
shelter building, number of cold days, building materials, and
other variables.  For each case, propane is  assumed to  be
$3,000 per year.

    For Case 1,  total  consumables and supplies  costs are
estimated to be $13,000 for the 10-gpm flow rate scenario;
$30,000 for the 50-gpm flow rate scenario; and $54,000 for
100-gpm  flow rate scenario.  Of these costs, feed chemicals
and the UV lamps are direct costs of operating the perox-
pure™ system.  These costs account for about 58 percent of
the total consumables and supplies costs for the 10-gpm flow
rate scenario,  about 81 percent for the 50-gpm  flow rate
scenario, and about 90 percent for the 100-gpm  flow rate
scenario. UV lamps account for between 30 and 35 percent
of the total consumables and supplies costs. Feed chemicals
account  for between  23 and 56  percent of  the  total
consumables and supplies costs.

    For Case 2,  total  consumables and supplies  costs are
estimated to be $10,000 for the 10-gpm flow rate scenario;
$22,000 for the 50-gpm flow rate scenario; and $38,000 for
100-gpm  flow rate scenario.  Of these costs, feed chemicals
and the UV lamps are direct costs of operating the perox-
pure™ treatment system.  These costs account for about 44
percent of the total consumables and supplies costs for the
10-gpm flow rate scenario, and about 73 percent for the 50-
gpm flow rate scenario and about 84 percent for the 100-
gpm flow rate scenario. Feed chemicals account for between
29  and 77  percent of the total consumables and supplies
costs. UV lamps account for between 8 and 15 percent of
the total  consumables  and supplies costs.

    The  difference hi  costs between the two  cases is
attributable to the  higher power requirements  and, hence,
the higher  number of UV  lamps needed to  treat  the
groundwater characteristics of Case 1.

4.2.7 Utilities Costs

    Total utility costs are based on the electrical power used
to  operate the entire treatment  system  and all  auxiliary
equipment  including the shelter building.  The  mercury-
vapor UV lamps, which are associated with operating the
perox-pure1* unit, draw significant electricity. This analysis
assumes  that electricity costs about $0.07 per kilowatt-hour
(kWh), inclusive of usage and demand charges.  In addition,
this analysis assumes that all  auxiliary equipment, which is
associated with a groundwater remediation project, will draw
                                                         28

-------
an additional 30 percent of the total electrical power of the
perox-pure™ system.

    For  Case 1,  the 10-gpm unit annually draws about
131,000 kWh, the 50-gpm unit draws about 655,200 kWh, and
the 100-gpm unit draws about 1,310,400 kWh. Total annual
utility  costs for operating the lamps only  will be about
$9,200, $45,900, and $91,700 for the 10-, 50-, and 100-gpm
flow rate scenarios, respectively.  Auxiliary equipment usage
will cost  an additional $2,800, $13,800, and $27,500 for the
respective three flow rate scenarios.  Operating the perox-
pure™  system accounts for about 77 percent of total utility
costs for all three flow rate scenarios.

    For Case 2, the 10- and 50-gpm units  annually draw
about 43,680 kWh, and the 100-gpm unit  draws about 87,360
kWh. Total annual utility costs for operating  the lamps only
will  be about  $3,100  for the 10- and  50-gpm  flow  rate
scenarios, and  $6,100 for  the 100-gpm  flow rate  scenario.
Auxiliary equipment usage will cost an additional $900 for
the 10- and 50-gpm flow rate scenarios,  and $1,800 for the
100-gpm flow rate scenario. Operating the treatment system
accounts for about 77 percent of total  utility costs for all
three flow rate scenarios.

    The  difference  in costs  between  the  two  cases is
attributable to the higher power requirement to operate the
UV lamps, needed for treating the groundwater in Case 1.
    Electrical  costs can  vary  by as much as 50  percent
depending on the geographical location and local utility
rates.  A diesel gas-powered generator can also be used as
a backup  or alternate source of electric power, but it will
cost considerably more than similar power supplied by local
utilities.

4.2.8 Effluent Treatment  and Disposal Costs

    The perox-pure™  system does not generate sludge  or
spent carbon that requires  further processing, handling,  or
disposal. Ideally, the end products of the process are water,
carbon dioxide, halides,  and  sometimes  organic acids.
Effluent  monitoring will be conducted routinely by the
operator (see Labor Costs). The effluent can be discharged
directly to a  nearby surface water  body,  provided the
appropriate permits have been obtained (see Permitting and
Regulatory Requirements Costs).

4.2.9 Residuals and Waste Shipping and Handling
Costs

    Spent cartridge filters and PPE drums are associated
with a groundwater remediation project. These wastes are
considered hazardous and will require  disposal at  a
permitted facility. For each case, this analysis assumes that
about six drums will be disposed of annually for the 10- and
50-gpm flow rate scenarios, and eight drums will be disposed
of for the 100-gpm flow rate scenario.  The cost of shipping,
handling, and  transporting drums to a hazardous  waste
disposal facility are assumed to be $1,000 per drum.  Total
drum disposal  costs for each case will be about $6,000 for
the 10- and 50-gpm flow rate scenarios and $8,000 for the
100-gpm flow rate scenario.

    In addition, filter cake from the filter press is considered
hazardous waste and will require disposal at a permitted
facility.  Because the amount of filter cake generated will
vary greatly from site to site, this analysis does not present
the costs of filter cake disposal. PSI will dispose of used UV
lamps at no cost.

4.2.10 Analytical Services Costs

    Analytical  costs  are  associated  with  a groundwater
remediation project and include laboratory analyses, data
reduction and tabulation,  quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC), and reporting.   For each  case, this analysis
assumes that one sample of untreated water and one sample
of treated water will  be analyzed for VOCs each month,
along with trip blank, duplicate, and matrix spike/matrix
spike duplicate samples.   Monthly laboratory analyses will
cost about $1,250; data reduction, tabulation, QA/QC, and
reporting is estimated to cost about $750 per month.  Total
annual analytical services costs for each case are estimated
to be about $24,000 per year.

4.2.11 Maintenance and Modifications Costs

    Annual repair and  maintenance  costs  apply  to all
equipment  involved  in  every  aspect  of  groundwater
remediation with the perox-pure™ system. No modification
costs are assumed to be incurred. Total annual maintenance
costs are estimated  to be about 10 percent  of capital
equipment costs. For Case 1, total annual maintenance costs
for the  perox-pure™  system  are  estimated to  be   about
$11,000 for a 10-gpm  unit; $18,500 for a 50-gpm unit; and
$29,000 for a 100-gpm unit. Total annual maintenance costs
for the  auxiliary equipment  are  estimated to  be   about
$10,800 for the  10- and 50-gpm units, and $11,200 for a 100-
gpm unit.

    For  Case 2, total annual maintenance costs for the
perox-pure™ treatment system are estimated to be  about
$5,500  for  each  flow  rate scenario.   Total  annual
maintenance costs for  the auxiliary equipment are estimated
to be about  $10,800  for  the  10-  and 50-gpm units, and
$11,200 for a 100-gpm unit.

    The  difference in costs  between  the two cases  is
attributable to the higher capital equipment  costs  in Case 1.
These costs are higher because more power is required to
achieve treatment goals.
                                                         29

-------
4.2.12 Demobilization Costs

    Site  demobilization  includes  shutdown,  disassembly,
transportation, and disposal of perox-pure™ equipment and
auxiliary equipment at a licensed hazardous waste disposal
facility. This analysis assumes the perox-pure™ system will
have no salvage value at the end of the project. Site cleanup
and restoration are  also included  in  demobilization costs.
For each case, this analysis assumes the costs from shutdown
to disposal for  all activities associated with a groundwater
remediation project  will be  about $30,000, including site
cleanup, restoration, and building decontamination.  This
analysis assumes the  shelter building will remain standing at
the site.  All disposal activities associated with operating the
pcrox-pure™ system are estimated to be about $10,000. For
each case, demobilization is estimated to take about 1 week
to complete and will cost a total of about $40,000.

    The costs of demobilization, however, will occur at the
end of the remediation project. To complete the project,
this analysis assumes that the 10-gpm unit will be used for 50
years, the 50-gpm unit will be used for 10 years, and the 100-
gpm unit will be used for 5 years.  Therefore, based on the
annual inflation rate of 5 percent, the net  future values of
this cost for 10-gpm, 50-gpm,  and 100-gpm  units are
estimated  to be  about $459,000; $65,000;  and  $51,000,
respectively.  These figures were used to calculate the total
costs for a groundwater remediation project  presented in
Tables 4-1 and  4-2.
                                                          30

-------
                                                 Section 5
                                                References
Evans, G., 1990, Estimating Innovative Technology Costs for
   the  SITE  Program.   Journal of Air  and  Waste
   Management Association. Volume 40, No. 7 (July).

Federal  Register,  1990a, U.S. Environmental Protection
   Agency (EPA), National Oil and Hazardous Substances
   Pollution Contingency Plan; Final Rule. Volume 55, No.
   46 (March 8).

Federal Register, 1990b, EPA Proposed Rules for Corrective
   Action for Solid Waste Management Units at Hazardous
   Waste Management Facilities. Volume 55, No. 145 (July
   27).

Glaze, W., and others, 1987, The Chemistry of Water
   Treatment   Processes Involving Ozone, Hydrogen
   Peroxide, and Ultraviolet Radiation. Ozone Science and
   Engineering.

U.S.  Department  of Energy  (DOE), 1988,  Radioactive
   Waste Management  Order.    DOE  Order 5820.2A
   (September 26).
U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency  (EPA),  1987a,
    Alternate Concentration Limit (ACL) Guidance. Part
    1:    ACL  Policy  and  Information  Requirements,
    EPA/530/SW-87/017.

EPA,  1987b,  Joint  EPA-Nuclear Regulatory  Agency
    Guidance  on  Mixed  Low-Level  Radioactive  and
    Hazardous Waste. OSWER Directives 9480.00-14 (June
    29), 9432.00-2 (January 8), and 9487.00-8 (August 3).

EPA,  1988,   CERCLA    Compliance   with   Other
    Environmental Laws:  Interim Final,  Office of Solid
    Waste   and  Emergency   Response  (OSWER).
    EPA/540/G-89/006.

EPA, 1989, EPA Memorandum from  OSWER to Waste
    Management Division and Office of Regional Counsel,
    Applicability of Land Disposal Restrictions  to RCRA
    and CERCLA  Groundwater  Treatment Reinjection.
    Superfund Management Review: Recommendation No.
    26 (December 27).
                                                     31

-------

-------
                                                  Appendix A
                                   Vendor Claims  for the Technology
A.I Introduction

    Because 50 percent of U.S. drinking water is obtained
from groundwater resources, the removal of contaminants
from  polluted   groundwater  has   become  a  major
environmental priority. Increasing groundwater pollution has
been caused by leaking  underground fuel and chemical
storage tanks, accumulations of pesticides and herbicides,
landfill leachates, and improper handling and disposal of
industrial chemicals and wastewater effluent. Contaminants
often migrate through  soil into municipal  water wells,
aquifers,  and   other   water  resources.     The   U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has identified 129 priority
organic contaminants;  with such  diversity in  molecular
structure  and chemical  properties,  these  contaminants
present a challenge to traditional treatment technologies.

    The perox-pure™ advanced chemical oxidation system,
developed by Peroxidation Systems, Inc. (PSI), of Tucson,
Arizona, provides an on-site treatment process  that destroys
contaminants in groundwater and wastewater. The patented
system design has been used to meet the most stringent
federal and state groundwater cleanup  regulations.

    Since it  entered the market in 1987, the  perox-pure™
system has been used on site to treat organic contamination
in groundwater at approximately 80 locations in the United
States, Canada, Puerto Rico, and Europe. The perox-pure™
system has been used  to treat groundwater, wastewater,
leachate, dredge water, bioeffiuent, and municipal water
contaminated with volatile organic compounds, semivolatile
organic compounds,  aromatic  compounds,  polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons, phenols, petroleum hydrocarbons,
and a number of other organic compounds.

A.2 Description of the perox-pure™ System

    The  perox-pure™ system  rapidly  breaks the  bonds
between atoms in organic molecules, thereby  allowing the
atoms to form simpler, nontoxic compounds, such as carbon
dioxide and  water.  In  the  perox-pure™  system, water
pumped from a contaminated  source is combined  with
hydrogen peroxide, a chemical oxidant.  Hydrogen peroxide
is preferred to ozone as a chemical oxidant, because ozone
is not very soluble in water, which results in long oxidation
times.  The higher solubility of hydrogen peroxide in water
greatly  simplifies the reactor  design in terms of oxidant
addition, mixing of reactants, and reduction of toxic gas
emissions.  Hydrogen peroxide is commercially available in
solutions of 30 to 50 percent by weight.  Systems using
hydrogen peroxide also require significantly less storage and
feed equipment and are less expensive relative to those using
ozone, because ozone must be generated on site. Finally,
because ozone is a toxic gas, it requires a special gas phase
decomposition system and an air discharge permit.

    The  mixture  of  contaminated water  and  hydrogen
peroxide passes through a series of reactor chambers that
expose it to high intensity ultraviolet (UV) lamps mounted
inside protective quartz tubes.  Inside each of the UV lamp
chambers, a photochemical reaction occurs that forms highly
reactive hydroxyl radicals (OH») from hydrogen peroxide
(see Table A-l).  Energy from the UV lamps absorbed by
the  target  compounds   also  increases the  compounds'
oxidation rate.

    Hydrogen peroxide injection points at the inlet of each
lamp section allow hydrogen peroxide to be added to each
reactor separately.  This arrangement, called the splitter, aids
the operator hi maintaining the ideal  balance of hydroxyl
radicals.

    Hydroxyl  radicals  destroy  the  bonds  hi  organic
contaminants between carbon  and  the  attached groups of
atoms, forming simpler, nontoxic chemical compounds. The
treated water exits the  system at the  top of the reactor
chambers.   The  only additive to the system, hydrogen
peroxide,  is consumed  in  the process,  and the system
generates  no ah-  emissions or by-products that require
disposal.

    The perox-pure™ system is effective in treating a variety
of organic compounds present  in contaminated waters and
is not limited by mass transfer, as are liquid-phase carbon
adsorption and air  stripping.
                                                        33

-------
T*b!a A-1 Oxftfttion Potential of Oxidants
Relative Oxidation
Power Chlorine = 1.00
2.23
2.06
1.78
1.52
1.31
1.25
1.24
1.17
1.15
1.10
1.07
1.00
0.80
0.54
Oxidative Species
Fluorine
Hydroxyl Radical
Atomic Oxygen
Ozone
Hydrogen Peroxide
Perhydroxyl Radical
Permanganate
Hypobromous Acid
Chlorine Dioxide
Hypochlorous Acid
Hypoiodous Acid
Chlorine
Bromine
Iodine
Potential (Volts)
3.03
2.80
2.42
2.07
1.78
1.70
1.69
1.59
1.56
1.50
1.46
1.36
1.09
0.73
A.3 perox-pure™ Systems

    The perox-pure™ systems are compact and designed to
operate unattended  on a continuous basis.   The  skid-
mounted  unit  consists  of a  control  panel,  lamp  drive
enclosures, and a reactor chamber.   An accompanying
hydrogen peroxide module is also skid-mounted and provides
storage, feed pumps,  and an eye wash station and safety
shower.   For sites  where  pH adjustment  of influent
wastewater or effluent is necessary, a skid-mounted acid feed
module or base feed module is used in addition to the
equipment listed above.

    The combined use of UV lamps and hydrogen peroxide
results in improved reaction rates.  Moreover, a smaller,
simpler design is possible, which reduces space requirements,
the   number  of  potential   replacement   parts,   and
corresponding maintenance costs.

    PSI can supply perox-pure™ units in various sizes. PSI
has designed, built, and installed systems capable of treating
flow rates varying from 5 gallons per minute to thousands of
gallons per minute.  The unit size required for a particular
application is determined  through laboratory treatability
studies and on-site tests.

    A diagram of the perox-pure™ unit is shown in Figure A-
1.  The perox-pure™ oxidation unit  consists  of multiple
horizontal sections connected hi series.  Inside each section,
one high intensity, medium-pressure UV lamp is mounted
inside a  quartz tube.  The  lamp and tube  assembly  are
positioned perpendicular to the side walls of the chamber.

A.4 Design Improvements

    The  advanced design  of current perox-pure™ systems
decreased the costs of earlier systems by 50 percent or more.
Improvements  include  an   innovative   reactor design,
anticorrosion lining  in the  reactors,  better  conversion
efficiencies  from  electrical  power  to  UV energy,  and
unproved methods  for   sequential hydrogen  peroxide
addition.  Engineering design improvements also make it
easier to adjust such parameters as flow rate,  pH, UV
energy, and the addition of hydrogen peroxide to individual
reactor  chambers to maximize destruction rates.   An
optional  programmable logic controller can be installed to
integrate the system into a fully automated remote treatment
system.

    Advanced perox-pure™  systems include a  patented,
automated, self-cleaning mechanism  for the UV lamps that
virtually  eliminates the scaling of the quartz tubes.  The
cleaning  mechanism  consists of a wiper that  fits in  the
annular space between the quartz tube and the  oxidation
chamber wall.  Propelled by water being treated in  the
system, the wiper regularly removes deposits from the quartz
tubes.   As  a result, costs  associated with unscheduled
maintenance to the system have been substantially reduced.
                                                         34

-------
                                                                     ^ft*    WMefln   E*s*g^ssga
Figure A-1 Isometric Diagram of perox-pure"* Unit
                                                             35

-------
    These engineering improvements have transformed the
perox-pure™ system into an efficient, low maintenance, and
highly  reliable advanced oxidation system  that  is cost
competitive  with  carbon  adsorption  and  air  stripping
technologies.

A.5 Pretreatment

    A prctreatment system is sometimes needed to reduce
the levels of certain inorganic species in the water.  If high
levels of suspended solids or turbidity are present, filtration
and  clarification  may  be  required to provide  optimum
treatment.  Acid  can also be added to increase treatment
efficiency by shifting the equilibrium from carbonate and
bicarbonate species to carbonic acid.

A.6"perox-pure™ Applications

    Although a broad spectrum of aqueous wastes can be
treated with the perox-pure™ technology, the most common
application is for water containing less than 500 milligrams
per liter of organic compounds. Higher concentrations can
be treated; however, the longer oxidation times needed to
treat higher concentrations may require batch or partial
recycle treatment.  In addition, treated water may need to be
cooled to keep it from overheating the system. A partial list
of applications of the perox-pure™ technology is shown in
Table A-2.

    While the chemistry of the perox-pure™ technology has
a number of  complex interactions which depend on the
characteristics of the water, a large database is available
from which initial predictions can be made.

    To determine if the perox-pure™ system is applicable to
a specific contamination problem,  a team of application
specialists is available at the PSI corporate headquarters in
Tucson,  Arizona  (800-552-8064).    After gathering the
information available from the potential user, the application
specialists  can  assess  the general applicability  of the
perox-pure™  technology  and,  in most cases, provide an
estimate of the capital and operating costs for perox-pure™
technology.  If requested,  written  estimates are prepared
which document the figures and provide information on the
available perox-pure™ systems and services.

    PSI requires the following information to evaluate the
application of the perox-pure™ technology:

    •   Contaminated water flow rate or production rate

    •   Identities   and   concentrations   of    organic
        contaminants

    •   Treatment objectives
    Other information  that allows PSI to provide a more
reliable estimate of treatment includes the following:

    •  Source of contaminated water

    •  Identity and concentrations of inorganics such as
       iron, chloride, and nitrate

    •  Levels  of  total organic carbon, chemical  oxygen
       demand, pH, alkalinity, dissolved solids, turbidity,
       color, and suspended solids

    •  Current treatment and pretreatment systems in use

    The estimates provided by PSI are intended to be used
to  determine   if  the  perox-pure™  technology  is  an
economically feasible method of treatment compared with
the costs of other potential treatment processes.  Since the
water  quality  has  such   a  significant  impact  on  the
perox-pure™ system performance, a process assessment at
the PSI Testing Laboratory, or in the field, with an actual
sample of the  water  is necessary  to provide definitive
treatment cost projections.

A.7 Advantages over Carbon Adsorption and Air
Stripping Technologies

    The   perox-pure™   advanced   chemical   oxidation
technology has demonstrated major advantages over carbon
adsorption and air stripping technologies. From a regulatory
perspective,  the major  advantage  of the  perox-pure™
technology is that it creates no secondary pollutants to treat
or haul away. This benefit has become more important as
federal, state, and local regulations become more stringent
regarding the allowable contaminant concentrations of air
emissions generated using air stripping  as  well  as the
disposal of secondary pollutants such as spent carbon. These
regulations have increased the costs of monitoring and
disposal as well as the  risk of legal liability associated with
treatment technologies. The perox-pure™ technology greatly
reduces the  risk  of future liability  associated with the
creation of secondary pollutants.

    The perox-pure™ technology is advantageous for treating
contaminated groundwater hi residential neighborhoods and
highly technical industrial  complexes because the system
offers a low-profile, on-site treatment that produces minimal
noise.   In  addition, the   perox-pure™  systems are very
compact and can be  positioned among existing equipment.
As a result, public relations problems are minimized.

    The   perox-pure™   technology   is  ideal  for  those
applications where carbon adsorption and air stripping are
not viable. For example, some priority pollutants,  such as
methyl-tert-butyl ether,  vinyl  chloride,  and  methylene
chloride, are not readily adsorbed by carbon. Many common
organic contaminants, such as isopropyl alcohol and acetone,
                                                         36

-------
Table A-2 Partial List of perox-pure'" Technology Applications
                  Waste Stream
Principal Contaminants"
                                                                                                Site Location
                  Bioeffluent
                  Dredge Water
                  Effluent
                  Groundwater
Chlorobenzene
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
BTX
Phenol
MeCI, Phenol, PAH
Nitrated Esters
Phenol
Phenols, Nitmphenols
IPA, TOG, TCA, DCE, MEK
Acrylic Acid, Butyl Acrylate
BTEX
TCE
BTX
BTX
TCA, Freon, MeCI, BTX
TCA, TCE
TCE
TCE, PCE, BTX, TCA
TCE, PCE, DCE, TCA, MeCI, Chloroform
TCE, PCE, TCA, DCE
TCE, TCA, CO, MeCI
TCE, TCA, PCE, DCE
Tetrahydrofuran
BTX.
TCE, PAHs
TCE, PCE, TCA, DCE
BTX
MeCI, TCA
TCE, DCE, PCE, MeCI
TCE, DCE, PCE, TCA
Pentachlorophenol
Connecticut
Massachusetts
California
New Jersey
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Texas
Utah
Arizona
Arizona
Arizona
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
Colorado
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
Washington
                                                               37

-------
T*bl» A-2 Ptrtltl List of perox-pur»M Technology Applications (continued)
Waste Stream
Leachato
Municipal Water
Recycle

Miscellaneous

Principal Contaminants*
Mixed Organic Acids, Ketones, and VOCs
Humic Acid/Color Control
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Bacteria, Phenol, Formaldehyde
Hydrazine
Hydrazine, DIMP
Site Location
New Hampshire
California
Arizona
Ohio
Colorado
Colorado
Notes:
*   Acronyms used In this table are defined as follows:

        BTEX    Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene
        B7X     Benzene, toluene, and xylene
        CCI4    Carbon tetrachloride
        DCE    Dlchloroethene
        DIMP    Dllsopropyl methylphosphonate
        IPA     Isopropyl alcohol
        MeCI    Methylene chloride
        MEK    Methyl ethyl ketone
        PAH    Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
        PCE    Tetrachloroethene
        TOC    Total organic carbon
        TCE    Trichloroathene
        TCA    Trichloroethane
        VOC    Volatile organic compound
arc  not removed by  air stripping.   The perox-pure™
technology provides reliable, consistent destruction of these
contaminants.

A.8 Other Advantages

    To  minimize  capital  investment   and  avoid   an
unreasonably  long-term  commitment to the  treatment
process, PSI  offers a  5-year plan  in which equipment,
maintenance, technical services, and hydrogen peroxide are
provided in one monthly fee. This plan allows customers to
accurately budget costs over the life cycle of the project, and
it allows PSI to respond to changing regulations on behalf of
the client and initiate process changes and improvements as
needed.  In some cases, the monthly fee has been reduced
as the process or water quality has improved.

A.9 Technology Combinations

    In many  water treatment  systems,  the  perox-pure™
technology has  been paired  with  carbon adsorption,  air
stripping, or biological treatment. Depending on the water
quality and treatment objectives, the perox-pure™ technology
can be combined with other technologies to produce a more
cost-effective  solution than  is  achieved with  any single
process.
                                                           38

-------
                                                  Appendix B
                                       SITE Demonstration Results
    In April 1991, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) learned that Peroxidation Systems, Inc. (PSI), was
contracted  by Lawrence Livermore  National Laboratory
(LLNL) to perform pilot-scale chemical oxidation studies as
part of remediation activities at the LLNL site. At that time,
EPA and PSI discussed the possibility of PSI participating in
the Superfund  Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
program to demonstrate how PSI's perox-pure™  chemical
oxidation technology could be used to treat contaminated
groundwater at LLNL Site 300 in Tracy, California.  EPA
subsequently accepted the perox-pure™ technology into the
SITE demonstration program. Through a cooperative effort
between the  EPA Office of Research and Development
(ORD), EPA Region IX, LLNL, and  PSI, the perox-pure™
technology was demonstrated at the LLNL site under the
SITE program.  This appendix briefly describes the LLNL
site and summarizes the SITE demonstration activities and
demonstration results.

B.I Site Description

    LLNL is a 640-acre research facility about 45 miles east
of San Francisco and 3 miles east of Livermore, California
(see Figure B-l). Development of the site began in 1942,
when it was used as a  U.S. Navy aviation training base.
Subsequent activities at LLNL varied considerably under the
management of several government agencies, including the
Atomic  Energy Commission, the  Energy Research and
Development Agency, and the U.S.  Department of Energy,
which is the present owner.  Various  hazardous materials,
including volatile organic compounds (VOC),  metals, and
tritium were used and released at the  site.

    The SITE demonstration was  conducted at Site  300,
which is operated by LLNL but is located separately from
the LLNL main campus (see Figure B-l). LLNL established
Site 300 as a high-explosives test area  in 1955.  Site 300
occupies 11 square  miles in the  Altamont Hills  about
15 miles southeast of Livermore and 8.5 miles southwest of
Tracy, California.   Site 300 operations  consist of  four
activities:  (1) hydrodynamic testing;  (2) charged particle-
beam research;  (3) physical, environmental, and dynamic
testing; and (4) high-explosive formulation and fabrication.
    EPA chose a specific area of Site 300 for the technology
demonstration.  This  area is called the General Services
Area (GSA).  The GSA occupies about 80 acres in the
southeastern corner of Site  300.  Various  administrative,
medical,  engineering,  and  maintenance  operations  are
conducted in buildings located in the GSA.  Before 1982,
several GSA facilities used dry wells to dispose of waste
rinse, process,  and wash waters. Wastes from these facilities
might have included the following: photo laboratory rinse
water; water-  and  oil-based  paint waste; automotive shop
waste containing degreasing solvents; and  acid dip rinse
water.   Between  1983 and 1984, the  dry wells were
investigated and  closed.   After  the  dry well  closure,
wastewater from these activities was shipped off site for
treatment and disposal.  Other wastes are currently stored
on site in a permitted hazardous waste  storage area.  The
suspected sources of groundwater contamination in the GSA
are the dry wells, accidental releases and leaks during facility
operations, and leaking underground fuel storage tanks.

    LLNL's Environmental Restoration  Division submitted
a remedial investigation (RI) report and a feasibility study
(FS) report to  EPA Region IX in May and December 1990,
respectively. The FS report outlined a treatment system for
contaminated  groundwater from  the central GSA.  The
system will be designed to treat both vapor and groundwater
obtained from extraction wells in the area. Groundwater will
be collected both on and off site for remediation. Currently,
several treatment alternatives are being evaluated at the site.

B.2 Site Contamination Characteristics

    Dry wells,  accidental releases  and leaks during facility
operations, and leaking underground fuel storage tanks are
suspected sources  of groundwater  contamination  in  the
central GSA.  Data from the RI report (LLNL, 1990) were
used to select the shallow aquifer at the site as the candidate
waste stream for the technology demonstration.

    In May 1992, LLNL performed an 8-hour drawdown
pump test using existing groundwater extraction wells.  The
groundwater was sampled throughout the test and analyzed
for VOCs, semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC), metals,
                                                        39

-------
             0  5 10 15 20
              Kilomatirs
Figure B-1 LLNL Site Location
                                                           40

-------
and a variety of other parameters, such as pH and alkalinity.
Samples for VOC and SVOC analyses were collected after
approximately 1, 3, 6,  and 8 hours of pumping time.  These
analyses showed that (1) only five VOCs were present above
detection  limits,  (2) SVOCs  were  not present  above
detection  limits, and  (3) all  five  VOCs  detected showed
gradual decreases in concentration over  the  8-hour test
duration.  At  the end of 8 hours, trichloroethene (TCE);
tetrachloroethene (PCE); 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE); 1,2-
dichloroethene (1,2-DCE); and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA)
were present at 1,200 micrograms per liter (/tg/L), 95 /ig/L,
7.1 /*g/L, 8.7 /ig/L,  and  7.5 /ig/L,  respectively.

    The following parameters were also  measured  in the
groundwater samples  collected after 6 hours of pumping:
(1) pH was 7.8; (2) alkalinity was 300 milligrams per liter
(mg/L) as calcium carbonate; (3) the concentration of total
dissolved solids was  930 mg/L; (4)  the concentration of iron
was 10 /*g/L, and (5) the concentration of manganese was 20
B.3 Review of SITE Demonstration

    The SITE demonstration was divided into three phases:
(1) site preparation; (2) technology demonstration; and (3)
site demobilization.    These activities and a  review  of
technology and perox-pure™ system performance during the
phases are described below.

B.3.1. Site Preparation

    Approximately 10,000  square feet  of relatively  flat
ground surface was  used for the perox-pure™ chemical
oxidation system and support equipment and facilities, such
as treated and untreated water storage tanks, nonhazardous
and potentially hazardous waste storage containers, an office
and  field laboratory   trailer,  and a parking  area.   A
temporary enclosure covering approximately one-fourth of
the demonstration area was erected to provide shelter for
the perox-pure™ system during inclement  weather.  Site
preparation included setting up major support equipment,
on-site support  services, and utilities.  These activities are
discussed below.

Major Support Equipment

    Support  equipment  for  the  perox-pure™  system
demonstration included a  cartridge  filtration  system  to
remove suspended solids from groundwater, storage tanks
for untreated and treated groundwater, an acid feed module
for untreated groundwater, a base feed module for treated
groundwater, a spiking solution feed system, a static mixer,
two 55-gallon drums for collecting equipment wash water
and decontamination rinse water, a dumpster, a forklift with
operator, pumps, sampling equipment, health-  and safety-
related gear, and a  van.   Specific items included  the
following:
One cartridge filtration system containing two filters
upstream of the treatment unit; the filters were
capable of removing suspended solids greater than
3 micrometers in size from groundwater.

One  55-gallon   closed-top,  polyethylene  drum
containing spiking solution; the drum was equipped
with a floating lid and a mixing device. During the
demonstration,  a   spiking  solution  containing
chloroform; 1,1-dichloroethane  (DCA); and TCA
was added inline to the groundwater to evaluate the
perox-pure™ system's ability to treat compounds
that are difficult to oxidize.

One static mixer to mix the spiking solution and
groundwater before  the  mixture  entered  the
untreated groundwater storage tank

One 7,500-gallon bladder tank  to  store untreated
groundwater and  minimize  VOC losses  during
storage.  The tank was used (1) as an equalization
tank  and  (2)   as   a  storage  tank for   a  few
demonstration runs performed at flow rates greater
than the groundwater yield.

One pump for transferring contaminated water from
the bladder tank to the perox-pure™ system and one
pump for  adding spiking  solution inline  to  the
groundwater

One sulfuric acid feed module to adjust the pH of
the  influent to the  perox-pure™  system;  PSI
provided the module, which consisted of a 55-gallon
acid feed drum, two pumps, and flow measuring
devices.

One sodium hydroxide feed module to adjust the
pH of the effluent from the perox-pure™  system;
PSI provided the module, which consisted of a 55-
gallon base  feed drum, two  pumps, and  flow
measuring  devices.

One solid waste dumpster to store nonhazardous
wastes before disposal

A number  of 55-gallon drums to  contain used
disposable field sampling and analytical equipment,
used disposable  health and safety  gear, and field
laboratory wastes before disposal

A forklift with operator for setting up equipment
and for moving drummed wastes

Sampling equipment for aqueous media and process
chemical solutions
                                                        41

-------
       Analytical   equipment   for   measuring
       parameters at the demonstration site
field
    •  Two  20,000-gallon  steel tanks  to  store  treated
       groundwater before analysis and disposal

    •  Health and safety-related equipment, such as a first-
       aid kit and protective coveralls,  latex or similar
       inner gloves, nitrile outer gloves, steel-toe boots and
       disposable overboots, safety glasses, and a hard hat

    •  A van to transport oversight personnel and supplies

On-Site Support Services

    On-site laboratory analyses were conducted in a field
trailer measuring 12 by 44 feet.  The field trailer also served
as an office for field personnel and provided shelter and
storage for small equipment and supplies.  Two toilets were
available near the demonstration area.

Utilities

    Utilities required for the demonstration included water,
electricity, and telephone service.  Water was required for
equipment  and  personnel decontamination,  for  field
laboratory use, and for drinking purposes. During operation
of  the  demonstration  unit,  personnel  and  equipment
decontamination required about 10 gallons per day (gpd) of
potable water. About 5 gpd of distilled, deionized water was
needed for field laboratory use, and about 5 to 10 gpd were
needed for drinking water.

    Electricity was needed for the perox-pure™ system, the
office trailer, and the laboratory equipment.  The perox-
purc™ system required 480-volt, 3-phase electrical service.
Additional  electrical power (110-volt, single-phase)  was
needed for operating the pumps, the mixing device in the
spiking solution feed system, the office trailer lights, and the
on-site laboratory and office equipment.

    Telephone service was required mainly for  ordering
equipment, parts, reagents, and other chemical  supplies;
scheduling   deliveries;  and   making   emergency
communications.   LLNL provided most of the  support
required to arrange utilities for the demonstration.

B.3.2 Technology Demonstration

    This  section  discusses  (1)  operational/equipment
problems and (2) health and safety considerations associated
with the SITE demonstration.
Operational/Equipment Problems

    The  SITE  team,  consisting  of EPA's  contractors,
experienced a few operational/equipment problems during
the demonstration.  Some of these problems resulted in
changes in the  demonstration  schedule, while the others
required making decisions in the field to solve the problems.
These problems and solutions include the following:

    •   Based on the 8-hour drawdown test performed in
        May  1992,  LLNL  estimated  that  during  the
        demonstration, contaminated groundwater could be
        extracted from Wells W-7-O  and W-875-08 at
        approximately 9 gallons per minute (gpm)  and 3
        gpm, respectively.  The demonstration tests were
        designed assuming that the combined stream would
        be  the influent  to  the  perox-pure™ system.
        However, based on observations  made in early
        September 1992, LLNL informed the SITE team
        that the wells might not provide the estimated yield
        throughout  the demonstration.  The SITE team
        resolved this issue by reducing the extraction rates
        from both wells in the same proportion, so that the
        influent characteristics would be approximately the
        same as those estimated before the demonstration.
        The SITE team extracted groundwater from Wells
        W-7-O  and W-875-08  at 6  gpm  and 2 gpm,
        respectively.   This approach did not affect the
        demonstration   schedule   or   the   technology
        evaluation.

    •   PSI requested that one of its operating facilities ship
        three  scaled  and  three  clean quartz tubes to
        perform Phase 3  test  runs.  However,  of the six
        quartz tubes, one tube was broken in transit.  PSI
        did not have enough time to replace the broken
        tube.  Therefore,  Phase  3  tests (Runs 13 and 14)
        were performed using only two ultraviolet (UV)
        lamps,  instead  of three.  As a result,  perox-pure™
        system performance with  scaled  tubes  and clean
        tubes  was compared  based  on  the   removals
        achieved in two reactors, instead of those achieved
        in three reactors.

    •   Late arrival of the perox-pure™ system (particularly
        the hydrogen   peroxide  feed  tank)  and other
        auxiliary  equipment  (such as  the bladder tank,
        pumps, and other miscellaneous items) delayed the
        technology demonstration by 3 days. However, the
        SITE  team  completed  the  demonstration on
        schedule by working late evenings and weekends.

    •   At the beginning of the demonstration, while setting
        the operating parameters, water inside the oxidation
        unit  overheated  and burned the  gaskets  that
        maintain a water-tight seal in two of  the reactors.
        As a result, water leaked out of the treatment  unit,
                                                        42

-------
 which PSI  collected in a 55-gallon  drum.   PSI
 explained  that  because  of  its oversight a  few
 pneumatically operated valves did not have an air
 supply, resulting in a stagnant volume  of water that
 overheated.  PSI also stated that the temperature
 sensor inside the unit, which is located in the top
 reactor, did not detect the high water temperature
 because the unit was only partially filled. Later, PSI
 connected an air compressor to the unit  to avoid
 reoccurrence of this situation. Replacement gaskets
 arrived the following day, causing the demonstration
 to be postponed 1 day.

 During the initial stage of the demonstration, due to
 improper operation of valves downstream of the
 perox-pure™ system, the pressure inside the perox-
 pure™ unit  exceeded the design  limit  and the
 pressure relief gasket gave way.  PSI immediately
 collected the leaking water in a drum and shut off
 the influent.  Because PSI had a replacement gasket
 on site, this operational problem did not cause  a
 significant delay.

 Halfway through the demonstration, while one test
 run was hi progress, the sulfuric acid level hi the
 acid feed  tank decreased significantly. As a result,
 the influent pH could not be lowered to the desired
 level, and the SITE team discontinued the run. The
 run was repeated after PSI filled the acid feed tank
.with sulfuric acid.

 Flow  rates  through  the  perox-pure™ system for
 Runs 7 and 8 were planned to be 50 gpm.  In order
 to   maintain  the  preferred  influent  pH  of
 approximately 5, the system flow rate was reduced
 to 40 gpm. PSI's acid feed pumps were riot capable
 of providing enough acid to the process flow to
 increase the system  flow rate.  This deviation did
 not alter the selection of preferred conditions from
 Phase 1 of  the  technology evaluation despite the
 increased  hydraulic retention  time  (inversely
 proportional to flow rate) resulting from the change
 in flow rate.

 The  SITE  team  initially encountered problems
 measuring the effluent pH at the sampling location
 downstream of the sodium hydroxide addition point.
 Because no static mixer was used, sodium hydroxide
 added to raise the effluent pH did not adequately
 mix with the effluent.  Lack of proper mixing caused
 problems  in measuring the true effluent pH  after
 sodium hydroxide addition.   The  SITE  team
 resolved this issue by installing another sampling
 port about  100 feet downstream, just before the
 treated water  entered  the  storage  tanks.   This
 modification significantly reduced fluctuations in pH
 and provided a good measure of effluent pH.
Health and Safety Considerations

    In general, potential health hazards associated with the
demonstration resulted from the possibility of exposure to
contaminated groundwater and process chemicals, including
hydrogen peroxide,  sulfuric acid,  and  sodium hydroxide
solutions.  Although the treatment system  was entirely
closed,  potential   routes   of  exposure   during  the
demonstration included inhalation, ingestion, and  skin and
eye contact from possible splashes or spills during sample
collection.

    All personnel working hi the demonstration area had, at
a minimum, 40 hours of health and safety training and were
under routine medical surveillance. Personnel were required
to wear  protective equipment appropriate for the activity
being  performed.   Steel-toe  boots were required hi the
exclusion zone.  Personnel working in direct contact with
contaminated groundwater and process chemicals  wore
modified Level  D protective equipment, including safety
shoes,  latex inner gloves, nitrile outer  gloves,  and safety
glasses.

B.3.3 Site Demobilization

    After the demonstration was  completed and on-site
equipment was disassembled and decontaminated, equipment
and  site  demobilization  activities  began.    Equipment
demobilization included loading the skid-mounted units on
a flat-bed trailer and transporting them off site, returning
rented support equipment, and disconnecting utilities.

    Decontamination was necessary for the perox-pure™ unit,
the  storage  tanks,  and  field  sampling and analytical
equipment.  Demonstration equipment was either cleaned
with potable water or steam, as required. The treated water
collected during the demonstration was tested,  and the
results were  provided to LLNL.  LLNL disposed of this
water appropriately.  LLNL also disposed of all hazardous
wastes at a permitted landfill. All nonhazardous wastes were
routinely disposed of along with similar wastes generated by
LLNL.

B.4 Experimental Design

    The technology demonstration had the following primary
objectives:  (1) determine VOC removal efficiencies hi the
treatment system under different operating conditions, (2)
determine whether  treated water met  applicable  disposal
requirements at  the 95 percent confidence level,  and (3)
gather  information necessary to estimate treatment costs,
including process chemical dosages and utility requirements.
The  secondary objective for the technology demonstration
was to obtain preliminary information  on the type of by-
products formed  during the treatment. To accomplish these
objectives, the following test  approach and sampling and
analytical procedures were used.
                                                 43

-------
B.4.1 Testing Approach

    The perox-pure™ chemical oxidation  technology was
demonstrated  over  a 3-week period in September 1992.
During  the  demonstration the perox-pure™  unit treated
about 40,000 gallons of groundwater  contaminated with
VOCs.  Principal groundwater contaminants included TCE
and PCE, which were present at concentrations of about
1,000 and 100 /tg/L, respectively. Groundwater was pumped
from two wells into a 7,500-gallon bladder tank to minimize
variability in influent characteristics. In addition, cartridge
filters were used to remove suspended solids greater than 3
micrometers in size from the groundwater before it entered
the bladder tank.  Treated groundwater was stored in two
20,000-gallon steel tanks before being discharged.

    The technology demonstration was conducted in three
phases (see Table B-l). Phase 1 consisted of eight runs of
raw groundwater, Phase 2 consisted of four runs of spiked
groundwater, and Phase 3 consisted of two runs of spiked
groundwater to test  the  effect  of quartz tube cleaning.
These phases are described below.

    The principal operating parameters for  the perox-pure™
system include hydrogen peroxide dose, influent pH, and
flow rate, which determines the hydraulic retention time.
These parameters were varied during Phase 1  to observe
treatment system performance under  different operating
conditions. For Phase 1 runs, the initial operating conditions
were based on groundwater characterization performed by
LLNL in May 1992 and PSI's professional judgment and
experience.  In Runs 1, 2, and 3 the influent pH was varied
while the other parameters were held constant to determine
preferred  operating  conditions.  The preferred operating
conditions were those under which the concentration of
effluent VOCs would be reduced below target  levels (see
Table B-2) for spiked groundwater.  After the preferred
value for pH was determined, that value was held constant,
while the other parameters were varied.  Preferred operating
conditions for each parameter were determined based  on
quick turnaround analytical data for three selected indicator
VOCs:  TCE, PCE, and TCA.  Even though TCE and PCE
are easily oxidized, they were chosen  because they were
present in relatively high concentrations. TCA was chosen
because it is relatively difficult to oxidize,  although  it was
present at a low concentration. Based on quick turnaround
analytical data, PSI  selected Run 3 operating conditions as
the preferred operating conditions for spiked groundwater.

    Phase 2 involved spiked groundwater and reproducibility
tests.  Groundwater was spiked with sufficient chloroform,
DCA, and TCA so  that the spiked groundwater contained
about 200 to 300 jtg/L of each  of these VOCs.   These
compounds were chosen because they are relatively difficult
to oxidize and because they were not initially present in the
groundwater at high concentrations. Phase 2 increased the
applicability of the  demonstration data to other sites that
maybe contaminated with VOCs that are difficult to oxidize.
Phase 2 was also designed to evaluate the reproducibility of
perox-pure™ system performance at the preferred operating
conditions determined in Phase 1.  Specifically, Runs 10,11,
and 12 were performed at Run 3 conditions to evaluate the
reproducibility of perox-pure™ system's performance.

    During Phase  3, the effectiveness of the quartz tube
wipers was evaluated by performing two runs using spiked
groundwater at the preferred  operating conditions.  The
quartz tubes used  in Phase  3 tests were obtained from a
hazardous waste site where the water  hardness  and iron
content caused scaling on the quartz tubes.  PSI obtained
two sets of quartz tubes for Phase 3 tests. One set of quartz
tubes was relatively clean, because  the wipers were routinely
used to  minimize  scaling.   The  other  set  of tubes had
significant scaling because wipers  were not used.  Because
only two tubes  of each type (scaled  and  clean) were
available, only two reactors were used during Phase 3.
Specifically,  Run 13 was performed using  scaled quartz
tubes, while Run 14 was performed using clean quartz tubes.
In both runs only two UV lamps were used.

B.4.2 Sampling and Analytical Procedures

    Liquid samples were collected from the perox-pure™
treatment system  at the locations shown in Figure B-2.
Table B-3 lists analytical and measurement methods used
during the demonstration. Total organic halides (TOX) and
adsorbable organic halides (AOX) listed in Table B-3 were
added  to the analyte list as requested by German Federal
Ministry of Research and Technology, under a U.S.-German
bilateral technology transfer  program.   The  following
parameters were considered critical for evaluating the perox-
pure™  technology:  (1) VOC, hydrogen peroxide, and acid
concentrations; and (2) flow rate and pH.   VOCs were
measured by both gas  chromatography (GC) and GC/mass
spectrometry (MS) methods.  Only  GC measurement of
VOCs was  considered critical,  because  GC data were
planned for quantitative use; GC/MS data were planned for
qualitative use.

    Because the perox-pure™ technology was  developed to
treat  organics,  and because  VOCs were  the  principal
contaminants in  groundwater, four replicate samples were
collected for GC analysis of VOCs. For other analytes, the
number of samples was based on (1) the intended use of the
data,  (2) analytical costs, (3) sampling time, and (4) the
discretion of analytical laboratory.  EPA-approved sampling,
analytical, quality assurance, and quality control (QA/QC)
procedures were followed to obtain reliable  data. Details on
QA/QC procedures are presented  in the demonstration plan
(PRC, 1992).
                                                         44

-------
Table B-1 Experimental Matrix for perox-pure'" Technology Demonstration
     Run Number    Influent pH
Hydrogen Peroxide at Influent   Hydrogen Peroxide at Influent
    to Reactor 1 (mg/L)        to Reactors 2 to 6 (mg/L)
                                                                                     Flow Rate
Phase 1 (Raw Groundwater Runs)
1 8.0
2 6.5
3 5.0
4 5.0
5 5.0
6 5.0
7 5.0
8 5.0
40
40
40
70
30
240
240
60
25
25
25
50
15
Hydrogen Peroxide
was added at Influent
to Reactor 1 only

10
10
10
10
10
10
40
40
Phase 2 (Soiked Groundwater and Reoroducibilitv Runs)
9 5.0
10 5.0
11 5.0
12 5.0

13 5.0
14 5.0
70
40
40
40
Phase 3 (Quartz Tube
40
40
50
25
25
25
Cleaner Runs)
25
25
10
10
10
10

10
10
B.5 Review of Treatment Results

    This section summarizes the results of both critical and
noncritical  parameters  for  the  perox-pure™  chemical
oxidation  system  demonstration,  and  it  evaluates  the
technology's   effectiveness   in   treating   groundwater
contaminated with VOCs.  Data are presented in graphic or
tabular form.  For samples with analyte concentrations at
nondetectable levels, one-half the detection limit was used as
the estimated concentration.  However, if more than one
replicable sample had concentrations at nondetectable levels,
using  one-half  the   detection  limit  as  the  estimated
concentration for  all replicable samples with nondetectable
levels of contaminants will significantly reduce the standard
deviation of the mean and will affect the statistical inferences
made.  For this  reason, 0.5, 0.4,  0.6,  and 0.4 tunes the
detection limit were used as estimated concentrations for the
first, second, third, and fourth replicate samples, respectively.
Throughout this appendix, the terms "Reactor 6 effluent,"
"perox-pure™ effluent," and "effluent" are used synonymously.
                               B.5.1  Summary
                               Parameters
of the  Results for  Critical
                                   Results for the critical parameters are presented below
                               for each phase of the demonstration.

                               Phase 1  Results

                                   In Phase 1 (Runs 1 through 8), only three VOCs were
                               detected in the influent to and effluent from the perox-pure™
                               system.  In general, TCE and PCE were present above
                               detection  limits only in the influent.  TCA could not be
                               measured in  the influent, because it  was present at
                               concentrations  two orders of magnitude lower than the
                               average TCE concentration and was diluted out during the
                               analysis. However, because effluent samples did not require
                               dilution, the TCA  concentration  could  be  measured in
                               treated groundwater.  In general, TCA was present in the
                               effluent from the perox-pure™ system.   Phase 1 VOC
                               concentration  data  are presented for TCE  and PCE in
                               Figures B-3 through B-5.  TCA  concentrations are not
                               shown in figures because TCA levels in the influent could
                               not be measured.
                                                         45

-------
TMa B-2 Target Level* for VOCs in Effluent Samples
                           VOC
                                                                                Target
                                                                                 Level
                            Chloroform

                            1,1-DIchloroethane (DCA)

                            1,1-Dichloroethene (1,1-DCE)

                            1,2-Dichloroethene (1,2-DCE)

                            1,1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA)

                            Trichloroethene (TCE)

                            Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
                      100

                        5

                        6

                        6

                      200

                        5

                        5
    Figure B-3 presents TCE and PCE concentrations in the
influent and Reactors 1, 3, and 6 effluent for Runs 1,2, and
3.  Concentrations are expressed as a function of influent
pH.  In  all three  runs,  the  effluent  TCE and  PCE
concentrations were well below the target level of 5  /ig/L
and below the detection limit of 1 /*g/L. Figure B-3 shows
that the perox-pure™ system performed best in Run 1,  when
the influent pH was 8 (the unadjusted pH of groundwater).
In this run, the Reactor 1 effluent had lower levels of TCE
and PCE than in Runs 2 and 3, and it had the same  levels
of TCE and PCE as the Reactor 6 effluent in Runs 2 and 3.
However, Reactor 6 effluent TCA concentration was lowest
in  Run  3  at  1.4  jttg/L (Reactor  6  effluent   TCA
concentrations in Runs  1  and 2 were 6.7 and 3.1 jtg/L>
respectively).  Because  TCA is  difficult to  oxidize, PSI
selected Run 3 as the preferred operating condition, with an
influent pH of 5.0.

    Figure  B-4   presents  a  comparison  of   VOC
concentrations in Runs 3, 4, and 5 as a function of hydrogen
peroxide levels.   Although the  effluent  TCE and  PCE
concentrations were the same in all runs, the data show that
Reactor 1 effluent TCE and PCE concentrations were the
lowest in Run 4 (with the highest hydrogen peroxide  level)
and in Run 5 (with the lowest hydrogen peroxide level).
Higher levels of TCE and PCE in the Reactor 1 effluent at
intermediate hydrogen peroxide levels cannot  be explained.
The Reactor 6 effluent TCA concentrations in Runs 3, 4,
and 5 were 1.4,1.8, and 2.1 |tg/L, respectively. No definite
trend can be identified based on TCE, PCE, and TCA data
in Runs 3,  4, and 5.

    Figure B-5 presents TCE and PCE concentrations at
different flow rates and  hydrogen peroxide levels.  Runs 4
and 6 were performed at a flow rate of 10 gpm. Runs 7 and
8 were performed at a flow rate of 40 gpm. In Runs  4 and
6, the same total amount of hydrogen peroxide was added to
the contaminated  groundwater.   However, in  Run  4,
hydrogen peroxide was  added at multiple points in the
system using the splitter,  while  in Run 6, all hydrogen
peroxide was added at the influent to the system. Based on
a comparison of TCE and PCE levels in Runs 4 and 6, the
effect of adding hydrogen peroxide at multiple points in the
perox-pure™ system cannot be evaluated, because in both
runs,  TCE and PCE levels in treated groundwater were
below the detection limit of 1.0 jtg/L.   However, effluent
TCA  levels in Runs 4 and  6 were 1.8 and  3.0 jtg/L,
respectively. Based on this data, adding hydrogen peroxide
at multiple points in the perox-pure™ system appears  to
enhance the system's performance.

    A comparison of TCE and PCE levels in Runs 6 and 7
shows that both TCE and PCE concentrations in Reactor 1
effluent were higher hi Run 7 than in Run 6. Similarly, the
effluent TCA level in Run 7 (3.9 /tg/L) was higher than in
Run 6 (3.0 /tg/L)-  These observations are consistent with
the operating conditions, because contaminated groundwater
had a much longer UV exposure tune in Run 6 than hi Run
7. UV exposure tunes were 1.5 and 0.4  minutes in Runs 6
and 7, respectively.

    A comparison of TCE  and PCE levels in Runs 7 and 8
shows that both TCE and PCE concentrations in Reactor 1
effluent were higher in Run 7 than in Run 8.  Effluent TCA
levels were about the same in both runs (3.9 and 4.0 /ig/L
in Runs 7 and  8, respectively).  The  higher  Reactor 1
effluent TCE level hi Run 7  may be attributed to higher
influent TCE levels in  that run.  Reactor 1 effluent TCE
levels correspond to 99.5 and 99.9 percent TCE removal hi
Runs 7 and 8, respectively.  Similarly, the Reactor 1 effluent
PCE  levels correspond to 92.9 and  99.2  percent PCE
removal in Runs 7 and 8. These data seem to indicate that
higher  doses of hydrogen peroxide may have  scavenged
hydroxyl radicals or excess hydrogen peroxide reduced UV
                                                        46

-------
        GROUNDWATER FROM
            SITE 300
                                                                                                •TO DISPOSAL
                                                                                                       UV LAMP
                                                                                                       REACTOR
                                                                                     OXIDATION  UNIT
         SPIKING
         SOLUTION
                                                                                        LEGEND
                                                                                        •  SAMPLING LOCATION
Figure B-2 perox-pure"* Chemical Oxidation Treatment System Sampling Locations
transmittance  through water, which  resulted  in  lower
removal efficiencies for Run 7 than those for Run 8.

    Based on quick turnaround analyses performed during
Runs 1 through 6, PSI selected Run 3 operating conditions
as  the  preferred   operating   conditions  for  spiked
groundwater.  As a  result,  Runs  10  through 14  were
performed using Run 3 operating conditions.

Phase 2 Results

    Phase 2 (Runs 9 through 12)  results for VOC removal
in the perox-pure™ system  are presented  in Figures B-6
through B-8. A comparison  of the perox-pure™ system's
performance in treating spiked groundwater (Run 9) and
unspiked groundwater (Run 4) is presented in Figure B-6.
Figure B-6  shows that TCE  and PCE  levels  in  treated
groundwater were higher in Run 9  (spiked groundwater)
than in Run 4 (unspiked groundwater). These data suggest
that spiking compounds  (chloroform, DCA,  and TCA)
affected the perox-pure™ system's  performance in removing
TCE and PCE, perhaps because  of the additional oxidant
demand.  However, treated groundwater TCE  and  PCE
levels plotted in Figure B-6 are estimated  concentrations.
Because the detection limit for TCE and PCE in Run 9 was
5 Mg/L and in Run 4 was 1 |*g/L, and because TCE and
PCE  were  present  at  nondetectable  levels  in  treated
groundwater in both runs, the estimated concentrations in
Run 9 are higher than in Run 4.  Therefore, the data are
inconclusive with regard to the effect of spiking compounds
on the removal of TCE and PCE.

    During the reproducibility runs (Runs 10, 11, and 12),
the effluent TCE, PCE,  and DCA levels  were generally
below detection limit (5 /*g/L) and effluent chloroform and
TCA  levels  ranged from 15 to 30 /*g/L.  VOC removal
efficiencies in reproducibility runs are plotted in Figure B-7.
Figure B-7 shows that for TCE and PCE, which  are easy to
oxidize, most of the removal occurred in Reactor 1, leaving
only trace quantities of TCE and PCE to be removed in the
rest of the perox-pure™ system.  However, for chloroform,
DCA, and TCA, which are difficult to oxidize, considerable
removal  occurred beyond Reactor 1.  During the  three
reproducibility runs, average removal  efficiencies for TCE,
PCE, chloroform, DCA, and TCA after Reactor 1 were 99.5,
95.9,41.3,67.0, and 17.4 percent, respectively. After Reactor
6, overall removal efficiencies for  TCE, PCE, chloroform,
DCA, and TCA increased to 99.7, 97.1, 93.1, 98.3, and 81.8,
respectively. The overall removal efficiencies of the perox-
pure™ system were reproducible for all VOCs. However, for
                                                        47

-------
T»b!a B-3 Analytical and Measurement Methods
Parameter
Acid
Alkalinity
AOX
Base
Btoassay

Electricity
consumption
Flow rate
Hardness
Hydrogen peroxide
Metals
(Iron and manganese)
pH
Purgosble organic
carbon (POC)
SVOCs
Specific conductance
Total carbon (TC) and
Total organic carbon
(TOG)
Temperature
TOX
Turbidity
VOCs(GC)
VOCs (GG/MS)
Notes:
* EPA, 1983.
6 Stoffans, 1992.
" EPA, 1985.
d EPA, 1986.
* APHA, AWWA, a
Method Type
Field
Laboratory
Laboratory
Field
Laboratory
Laboratory
Field
Field
Laboratory
Field
Laboratory
Field
Laboratory
Laboratory
Field
Laboratory
Field
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
nd WPCF, 1989.
Method Source
Acid-base titration
MCAWW 310.1"
DIN 38409 H14b
Acid-base titration
EPA/600/4-85/01 3°
EPA/600/4-85/013c
None
None
MCAWW 730.2"
BoHz and Howell, 1979
SW-846 3010/601 Od
MCAWW 150.1"
SM 53708*
SW-846 3510/3640/8270d
SW-846 9050"
SM 5310C"
MCAWW 170.1*
SW-846 9020d
MCAWW 180.1"
SW-846 5030/8010"
SW-846 8240"

Name of Method
Titration with sodium hydroxide
Alkalinity (titrimetric)
Adsorbable organic halide measurement
Titration with sulfuric acid
48-hour static acute toxicity test (definitive)
using Ceriodaohnia dubia
96-hour static acute toxicity test (definitive)
using Pimephales oromelas
Electricity consumption
Flow rate measurement using monitoring
equipment on the treatment system
Hardness
Color/metric method for hydrogen peroxide
measurement
Metals by inductively coupled plasma-atomic
emission spectroscopy
pH electrometric measurement
Carbon measurement by combustion-
infrared method
GC/MS for SVOCs: capillary column
technique
Specific conductance
Carbon measurement by persulfate-
ultraviolet oxidation method
Temperature
Total organic halide measurement
Turbidity (nephelometric)
Halogenated VOCs by GC: purge and trap
VOCs by GC/MS: capillary column
technique

48

-------
          TCE
          PCE
                               VOC Concentration, jjg/L
                                     10         100        1,000
                                                          Run /
                                                   Influent pH = 8.0
10,000
               Influent
               Reactor I
               Reactor 3
               Reactor 6
                                                          1,000      10,000
         TCE
         PCE
         TCE
         PCE
                                                          1,000      10,000
Figure B-3 Comparison of VOC Concentrations at Different Influent pH Levels
   (Hydrogen Peroxide Level at Reactor 1 = 40 mg/L; Hydrogen Peroxide Level at
   Reactors 2 through 6 = 25 mg/L; Flow Rate = 10 gpm)
                                                    49

-------
                               VOC Concentration, yg/L

                                      10         100       1,000
           TCE
           PCE
            Run 3
    (Hydrogen Peroxide Level
     at Reactor I = 40 mgIL;
at Reactors 2 through 6 = 25 mgIL)
                            10,000
Influent
Reactor  I
Reactor 3
Reactor 6
                                                           1,000      10,000
           TCE
           PCE
            Run 4
    (Hydrogen Peroxide Level
     at Reactor I = 70 mgIL;
at Reactors 2 through 6 = SO mgIL)
                                                           1,000      10,000
           TCE
            PCE
            Run 5
    (Hydrogen Peroxide Level
     at Reactor I = 30 mgIL;
at Reactors 2 through 6=15 mgIL)
Flguta B-4 Comparison of VOC Concentrations at Different Hydrogen Peroxide Levels
       (Influent pH * 5.0; Flow Rate = 10gpm)
                                                   50

-------
                 O.I
VOC Concentration, jig/L
        10         100        1,000
                       10,000
            TCE
            PCE
                                                       110    Run 4
                                                       (Hydrogen Peroxide Level
                                                         at Reactor I =70 mgIL;
                                                     at Reactors 2 through 6 = SO mgIL;
                                                          Flow Rate = 10 gpm)
                 O.I
        10
100        1,000       10,000
            TCE
            PCE
                                                                1,000      10,000
            TCE
            PCE
            TCE
            PCE
                      120
                            Run 6
                     (Hydrogen Peroxide Level
                      at Reactor I = 240 mgIL;
                       Flow Rate = 10 gpm)
                            Run 7
                     (Hydrogen Peroxide Level
                      at Reactor I = 240 mgIL;
                       Flow Rate = 40 gpm)
                                                       (Hydrogen Peroxide Level
                                                        at Reactor I =60 mgIL;
                                                         Flow Rate = 40 gpm)
                                                                1,000      10,000
                                                          Influent
                                                          Reactor I
                                                          Reactor 3
                                                          Reactor 6
Figure B-5 Comparison of VOC Concentrations at Different Flow Kates and Hydrogen Peroxide Levels
        (Influent pH = 5.0)
                                                       51

-------
r
                      TCE
                      PCE
              Chloroform
                      DCA
                      TCA
                      TCE
                      PCE
                                         VOC Concentration, pg/L

                                          !              10
100
                                                   Phase 2 — Run 9
                                                       Spiked
                                                  Phase / — Run 4
                                                     Unspiked
         Figure B-6 Comparison of VOC Concentrations in Spiked and Unspiked Groundwater
            (Influent pH ~ 5.0; Hydrogen Peroxide Level at Reactor 1 = 70 mg/L; Hydrogen
            Peroxide Level at Reactors 2 through 6 = 50 mg/L; Flow Rate = 10 gpm)
1,000
                                                                                      1,000
                                                                                       1980
                          Influent
                          Reactor /

                          Reactor 3

                          Reactor 6
                                                            52

-------
Percent Removal
Percent Removal
Percent Removal
                                                           n  n   n
                                                           a  a   a

                                                           a  a   a
                                                           o  o   o
                                                           -n  -I   -t

                                                           Ox  Lo  —.

-------
         1,000
            100
     _
     o
     D
     «Ł
     in
             10
                                                 TL=IOO
                           Target Level
                 :	lk=J	
                   2.9
                       3.2
l3.1l
                                  2.9
                                      3.2
                                       TL = 5
                                                               4.9
                                                                   32
311)
x'




113
Run 10
Run 11
Run 12
                      TCE
          PCE     Chloroform     DCA
                                                                               TCA
Figure B.8 Comparison of 95 Percent UCLs for Effluent VOC Concentrations with Target Levels in Reproducibility Runs
        (Influent pH = 5.0; Hydrogen Peroxide Level at Reactor 1 = 40 mg/L; Hydrogen
        Peroxide Level at Reactors 2 through 6 = 25 mg/L; Flow Rate = 10 gpm)
certain compounds, the removal efficiencies after Reactor 1
were  quite  variable  (for  example,  chloroform  removal
efficiencies  ranged from 27.4 to 56.3  percent).   This
variability may be associated with sampling and  analytical
precision.

    Figure B-8 compares the 95 percent upper confidence
limits (UCL)  of effluent VOC concentrations with target
levels in reproducibility runs.  For this project, the target
level for a given VOC was set at the most stringent limit in
cases where the VOC has multiple regulatory limits. For all
VOCs but  chloroform,  the most stringent  limit  is the
California drinking water action level. For chloroform,, the
most stringent limit  is the  maximum contaminant level
(MCL) specified in the Safe Drinking Water Act.  Figure B-
8 shows that  perox-pure"1  system effluent met the target
levels  at  the 95  percent  confidence  level  in  all  three
reproducibility runs, indicating that the system performance
was reproducible.

Phase 3 Results

    Figure B-9 presents VOC concentrations in Runs 12,13,
and 14, which were  conducted  to  evaluate  quartz tube
cleaning.   In Run 12,  quartz  tubes  from  the  previous
                                   demonstration runs were used.  In Run 13, scaled quartz
                                   tubes  were used.  These tubes had  been exposed to an
                                   environment that encouraged scaling, but they had not been
                                   maintained with cleaners or wipers. In Run 14, quartz tubes
                                   that had been maintained by cleaners  or wipers were used.

                                      A  comparison of  removal efficiencies  for  TCE  in
                                   Reactors 1 and 2 shows that TCE removal efficiencies were
                                   about the same in all runs.  PCE removal efficiencies were
                                   about 3 percent less in Run 13 than that in Runs  12 or 14.
                                   Removal efficiencies for chloroform, DCA, and TCA were
                                   consistently less in Run 13 than in Run 14, indicating that
                                   periodic cleaning of quartz  tubes by wipers is required to
                                   maintain the perox-pure™ system's performance.  Without
                                   such cleaning, the removal efficiencies  will likely decrease hi
                                   an aqueous environment that would cause scaling  of quartz
                                   tubes.  For example, after Reactor 2, chloroform removal
                                   efficiency in Run 13 was 53.4 percent, compared to 61.3
                                   percent removal efficiency in Run 14. Because the quartz
                                   tubes used hi Run 12 had little coating, it was expected that
                                   the removal efficiencies in  Run 12 would be higher than
                                   those  hi Run 13.   However,  the demonstration did  not
                                   confirm this for all VOCs.  For example, Run  12 TCA
                                   removal efficiencies were less  than Run 13 TCA removal
                                   efficiencies; this inconsistency cannot be explained.
                                                         54

-------
Percent Removal
Percent Removal
Percent Removal

-------
B.5.2  Summary  of  Results  for  Noncritical
Parameters

    The technology demonstration also evaluated analytical
results of several noncritical parameters.  These results are
summarized below.

    GC/MS analysis of influent  and effluent  samples for
VOCs indicated that new target  compounds or tentatively
identified compounds (TIC) were not formed during the
treatment.

    GC/MS analysis of influent  and effluent  samples for
SVOCs showed that target SVOCs were not present at
detectable levels.   However, several unknown TICs were
present in both the influent and effluent samples.

    Average influent TOX and AOX levels were 800 jig/L
and 730 /xg/L, respectively.   The  perox-pure™ system
achieved TOX removal efficiencies that ranged from 93 to 99
percent and AOX removal efficiencies that ranged from 95
to 99 percent.

    The TC, TOC, and POC concentrations  hi influent and
effluent samples in Runs 10, 11, and 12 are presented in
Figure B-10. Average TC concentrations in the influent and
effluent were 75 mg/L and 55 mg/L, respectively.   The
decrease in TC concentration in the perox-pure™ system may
be due to the loss of dissolved carbon dioxide that occurred
as a result of  the  turbulent movement of contaminated
groundwater in the perox-pure™ system.

    Figure  B-10 shows  a decrease in TOC of about 40
percent during treatment. .The decrease corresponds to the
amount of organic carbon that was converted  to inorganic
carbon during treatment, suggesting that about 40 percent of
the  organic carbon was  completely oxidized to carbon
dioxide. However, the TOC data do not indicate whether
the  organic carbon that was completely oxidized had
originated from the VOCs present hi groundwater or from
some other compounds present hi groundwater.

    Effluent POC concentration was about 0.02 mg/L which
is below  the  reporting  limit  of  0.035  mg/L.   POC
concentration data  show that the average  POC removal
efficiency was about 93 percent. Assuming that the majority
of organic carbon associated with VOCs could be measured
as POC, this indicates  that about 93 percent of volatile
organic carbon was converted  to either carbon dioxide or
nonpurgeable organic carbon.

    During Runs  10,  11,  and  12,  bioassay  tests  were
performed to evaluate the acute toxicity  of influent to and
effluent from the perox-pure™ systems. Two  freshwater test
organisms,  a water flea  (Ceriodaphnia  dubid) and a
fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), were used in the
bioassay  tests.    Toxicity  was  measured  as the lethal
concentration at which 50 percent of the organisms died
(LCso), and expressed as the percent of effluent (or influent)
in the test water. One influent and one effluent sample were
tested hi each run. One control sample was also tested to
evaluate  the  toxicity associated with  hydrogen peroxide
residual present hi the effluent.  The control sample had
about 10.5 mg/L of  hydrogen peroxide  (average effluent
residual hi Runs 10,  11, and 12), and had  characteristics
(alkalinity, hardness, and pH) similar to that of effluent hi
Runs 10, 11, and 12.

    In general, the influent was not found to be acutely toxic
to either test organism. The effluent was found to be acutely
toxic to both test organisms.  The influent LC^, values for
both organisms indicated that hi the  undiluted influent
sample more than 50 percent of the organisms survived.
However, LCj,, values for the water flea were estimated to be
35,  13, and  26 percent effluent in  Runs 10, 11, and 12,
respectively;  and LC50 values for the  fathead minnow were
estimated to be 65 and 71 percent effluent hi Runs 10 and
11,  respectively. In Run  12, more than 50 percent of the
fathead minnows survived hi the undiluted  effluent.  The
LC50 value  for the  water flea  was  estimated  to  be
17.7 percent hi the control sample, indicating that the sample
contained hydrogen peroxide at a concentration that was
acutely toxic to water fleas. However, more than 50 percent
of the  fathead minnows survived hi  the undiluted control
sample indicating hydrogen peroxide was not acutely toxic to
fathead minnows at  a concentration of 10.5 mg/L.  This
observation,   however,  is  not  entirely  consistent with
observations made by the Department of Environmental
Protection, State of Connecticut (CDEP). The CDEP Water
Toxics Section of Water Management Division reports LCSO
value of  18.2 mg/L of hydrogen peroxide with 95 percent
confidence limits of 10 mg/L and 25  mg/L (CDEP, 1993).

    Comparison of the LC^ value of the control sample with
LC^ values of effluent samples for water fleas indicates the
toxicity associated with the effluent samples is probably due
to hydrogen peroxide residual hi the  effluent. However, no
conclusion can be drawn on the effluent toxicity to fathead
minnows because the control sample toxicity results from the
SITE demonstration data are not entirely consistent with the
data collected by CDEP.

    Iron  and manganese were present at trace levels hi the
influent.  In general, iron  was present at levels less than 45
jtg/L, and manganese was present at an average level of 15
/tg/L.  Removal of iron or manganese did not occur hi the
perox-pure™ system, because these metals were present only
at trace levels hi the influent.

    No  changes hi pH,  alkalinity,  hardness,  or specific
conductance were observed during treatment.

    Average influent temperature was about 72 °F. Average
effluent temperatures were  about 90 °F and 76  °F, at
influent flow rates of 10 gpm and  40 gpm, respectively.
                                                        56

-------
              0.01

            TC

          TOC

          POC
              0.01
            TC
         TOC
          POC
              0.01
           TC
         TOC
         POC
   Carbon Concentration, mg/L
O.I              I              10
                                        Run  10
                                        Run  //
                                        Run 12
Figure B-10 Carbon Concentrations in Reproducibility Runs
   (Influent pH = 5.0; Hydrogen Peroxide Level at Reactor 1 = 40 mg/L; Hydrogen
   Peroxide Level at Reactors 2 through 6 = 25 mg/L; Flow Rate = 10 gpm)
                                                         Influent
                                                         Reactor 6
                                                     57

-------
Because 10 gpm corresponds to a hydraulic retention time of
1.5 minutes and 40 gpm corresponds to a retention time of
0.4 minutes, the average temperature increase due  to  1
minute of UV radiation exposure in the perox-pure™ system
is about 12 °F.

B.6 Conclusions

    For  the  spiked groundwater, PSI determined  the
following  preferred  operating  conditions:    (1) influent
hydrogen peroxide level of 40 mg/L, (2) hydrogen peroxide
level of 25 mg/L in the influent to Reactors 2 through 6, (3)
influent pH of 5.0, and (4) flow rate of 10 gpm.  At these
conditions, the effluent TCE, PCE, and DCA levels  were
generally below detection limit (5 jtg/L) and TCA levels
ranged  from 15  to 30 pg/I-.    The  average  removal
efficiencies for TCE, PCE, chloroform, DCA, and TCA were
about 99.7, 97.1, 93.1, 983, and 81.8 percent, respectively.

    For the unspiked groundwater, the effluent TCE and
PCE  levels were  generally  below  the detection  limit
(1 /
-------
                                                  Appendix C
                                                 Case Studies
    This appendix summarizes three case studies on the use
of the perox-pure™ chemical oxidation system developed by
Peroxidation Systems, Inc. (PSI). The perox-pure™ system
has proven to  be a technically and  economically viable
alternative  to  conventional  technologies.   It should be
evaluated in cases requiring treatment of water contaminated
with organic contaminants. All three case studies represent
full-scale, currently operating commercial installations. The
contaminants  of  concern in these case  studies include
acetone, isopropyl alcohol (IPA), trichloroethene (TCE), and
pentachlorophenol (PCP). The scope of the case  studies is
limited to basic information concerning the following topics:
site  conditions,  system  performance, and  costs.    The
following case studies are discussed in this appendix:

    •  Wastewater  Treatment  System, Kennedy Space
       Center, Florida

    •  Municipal Drinking Water System, Arizona

    •  Chemical Manufacturing Company, Washington

C.I Wastewater Treatment System, Florida

    This case study describes the performance and treatment
costs  of  the  perox-pure™  system  treating   industrial
wastewater containing  acetone and IPA at  the  Kennedy
Space Center site in Florida.

C.1.1 Site Conditions

    Effluent from the existing wastewater treatment system
at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida frequently exceeded
the permitted  levels for discharges of acetone and  IPA.
Discharges were reported at levels up to 20 milligrams per
liter (mg/L) for both compounds.   The treatment  facility
discharge  requirement for both acetone and IPA is 0.5
mg/L.  A liquid-phase carbon adsorption  system  had
originally been installed as part of the treatment system, but
was found to be inadequate.  Subsequently,  perox-pure™
chemical oxidation technology was selected  as  the new
method of treatment.
    After selecting the perox-pure™ chemical oxidation
technology, the facility contractor installed a perox-pure™
Model SSB-30R in the fall of 1992.  The system was used to
treat 5,000- to 6,000-gallon batches of contaminated water.
A demineralization system operated by another contractor
received  effluent  from the  perox-pure™ unit.   Facility
requirements specified a maximum treatment time  of 24
hours for each batch.

C.I.2 System Performance

    The  perox-pure™  unit is currently treating maximum
levels of  acetone and IPA (both 20 mg/L) to less  than 0.5
mg/L for each compound.  The treatment objectives were
easily met, even when  the wastewater contained twice the
maximum  expected  acetone and  IPA  concentrations.
Treatment objectives were achieved for each batch in less
than the specified 24-hour  maximum treatment time.   In
addition, effluent  from the perox-pure™  unit met  the
demineralization discharge standards, making treatment by
the demineralization system unnecessary.

    Due  to the efficiency of treatment, the contractor was
able to treat wastewater in a flow-through mode rather than
in batches.  The resulting flow rate of 5 gallons per minute
(gpm) for a period of 20 hours per day requires 10 kilowatts
(kW) to  power the ultraviolet (UV) radiation lamps. The
additional capacity of the perox-pure™ unit will be used in
contaminant spill  situations,  which would produce  much
higher acetone  and IPA concentrations.   The  influent
hydrogen peroxide dosage for flow-through operation was
100 mg/L.

C.1.3 Costs

    The operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for flow-
through operation of the perox-pure™ unit include electricity,
chemicals (hydrogen peroxide), and general maintenance.
The following items are used at the indicated rate  for each
1,000 gallons treated:  electricity at $0.06 per kilowatt-hour
(kWh) costs $2.00; 50  percent hydrogen peroxide  at $0.35
per  pound  costs $0.60;   and   estimated   maintenance
                                                        59

-------
requirements cost $1.00.  The total O&M cost per  1,000
gallons treated is $3.60.

C.2 Municipal Drinking Water System, Arizona

    This case study describes the performance and treatment
costs  of the perox-pure™  system  treating  groundwater
containing  TCE.   The  groundwater  was a  source of
municipal drinking water in Arizona.

C.2.1 Site Conditions

    In 1989, a municipal groundwater well in Arizona used
for drinking water  was found to  contain  50  to 400
micrograms per liter (/tg/L) of TCE. The well,  capable of
producing  2,000 gpm, was  taken  out  of service  while
treatment options were considered.  Because  the well is
located on a city lot in the middle of a large residential area,
the city  preferred using a low-visibility, quiet treatment
method  that   could   consistently   destroy   TCE  to
concentrations below the drinking water standard of 5 /tg/L.
Moreover, treatment to below the drinking water standard
was desirable because of  the high  profile of the site
remediation.  Given these requirements, the perox-pure™
chemical oxidation technology was selected.

    An  on-site performance evaluation was  initiated in
December  1989 using a perox-pure™ pilot  system to treat
contaminated groundwater pumped from the well at a flow
rate of 135 gpm.   Testing showed that  TCE could be
destroyed to below the analytical detection limit of 0.5 /*g/L.

C.2.2 System Performance

    A perox-pure™ Model SSB-30R is currently hi operation
at  the  site, treating  organic contamination   to below
detectable levels at a flow rate of 135  gpm. Treatment is
accomplished with  only  15 kW of power,  one-half  the
capacity of the unit. The average influent concentration of
TCE is 150 /tg/L, and the effluent TCE concentration  is less
than 0.5
C.2.3 Costs

    O&M costs for continuous operation of the perox-pure™
system  at  a flow rate of  135 gpm include electricity,
chemicals (hydrogen peroxide), and general maintenance.
The following items are consumed at the indicated rate for
each 1,000 gallons treated:  electricity at $0.06 per kWh costs
$0.11; 50 percent hydrogen peroxide at $0.35 per pound costs
$0.12; and estimated maintenance requirements cost $0.05.
The total O&M cost per 1,000 gallons treated is $0.28.
C3   Chemical   Manufacturing    Company,
Washington

This case  study describes the performance and treatment
costs  of the perox-pure™  system treating  groundwater
containing PCP  at a chemical manufacturing facility hi
Washington.

C.3.1 Site  Conditions

    PCP contamination was discovered hi local groundwater
surrounding   a  chemical  manufacturing  company  hi
Washington.  The  company had produced PCP for more
than 30 years. Because of the site geology, the groundwater
was brackish and contained high concentrations of iron and
calcium carbonate.  The chemical company initiated  a
remediation  effort  that included a pump-and-treat process.
After  bench-scale  testing,   the  perox-pure™  chemical
oxidation system was selected to destroy PCP to below a
target level of 0.1 mg/L.

    A full-scale perox-pure™ system was installed hi 1988
under  a Full Service Agreement with PSI.   When the
remediation  effort  began, groundwater was contaminated
with PCP at levels of up to 15 mg/L, three tunes higher than
expected.  Iron was detected at levels of up to 200 mg/L, 20
tunes  higher than expected.   PSI made  pretreatment
recommendations and assisted with the selection of an iron
oxidation and removal system, which included clarification
and multimedia filtration. Treatment with the perox-pure™
system reduced iron concentrations hi the groundwater to
acceptable levels. The groundwater was stabilized and the
scaling tendency was reduced by adding acid to lower the
groundwater pH to approximately 5.

    The original perox-pure™ unit did not  have  enough
capacity  to   treat   the  unexpectedly  high  PCP  levels.
However,  as part of the Full Service Agreement, a perox-
pure™  Model CEBX-360R was installed  to replace the
original unit.   The new model  incorporated the latest
improvements  hi  the 'perox-pure™  unit,  including  an
automatic tube cleaning device.

C.3.2 System Performance

    The groundwater is being successfully treated at a flow
rate of about 70 gpm, and a power requirement of 180 kW.
The pH of  the  influent groundwater  is adjusted to 5 by
adding acid,  and hydrogen peroxide is added to the influent
to achieve a concentration of 150 mg/L. The perox-pure™
system  is  currently  treating  maximum influent  PCP
concentrations of 15 mg/L to average effluent concentration
of 0.1 mg/L.
                                                        60

-------
C.3.3 Costs

    O&M costs for continuous operation of the perox-pure™
system at a flow rate of 70 gpm include electricity, chemicals
(hydrogen  peroxide and  acid),  and general  maintenance.
The following items are used at the indicated rate for each
1,000  gallons  treated:   electricity at  $0.06  per kWh  costs
$2.57; 50 percent hydrogen peroxide at $0.35 per pound costs
$0.87; acid at $0.085 per pound costs $0.03; and estimated
maintenance requirements cost $0.43.  The total O&M cost
per 1,000 gallons treated is $3.90.
                                                           61
                                                                                   •ft U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1995—651-569

-------

-------