EPA/540/R-94/501
May 1995
Colloid Polishing
Filter Method -
Filter Flow Technology, Inc.
Innovative Technology Evaluation 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 in this document has been prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program under Contract
No. 68-CO-0047. This document has been subjected to EPA's 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 by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. The program is administered by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development. The
purpose of the SITE program is to accelerate the development and use of innovative cleanup
technologies applicable to Superfund and other hazardous waste sites. This purpose is
accomplished through technology demonstrations designed to provide performance and cost data
on selected technologies.
This project consisted of a demonstration conducted under the SITE program to evaluate the
Colloid Polishing Filter Method technology developed by Filter Flow Technology, Inc. The
technology demonstration was conducted at a U.S. Department of Energy site. This Innovative
Technology Evaluation Report provides an interpretation of the data and discusses the potential
applicability of the technology.
A limited number of copies of this report will be available at no charge from EPA's Center
for Environmental Research Information, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio
45268, 513-569-7562. 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, Ravens worth Building, Springfield, Virginia 22161, 703-
487-4600. Reference copies will be available at EPA libraries in the Hazardous Waste
Collection. You can also call the SITE Clearinghouse hotline at 800-424-9346 or 202-382-3000
in Washington, D.C., to inquire about the availability of other reports.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
in
-------
Abstract
This report evaluates the Colloid Polishing Filter Method (CPFM) technology's ability to
remove uranium and gross alpha contamination from groundwater. This report also presents
economic data from the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) demonstration and
compares the technology against the nine criteria the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) uses to select remedial alternatives for Superfund sites.
The CPFM technology was developed by Filter Flow Technology, Inc. (FFT), of League
City, Texas. The technology uses an inorganic, insoluble, oxide-based compound (Filter Flow
[FF] 1000) to remove radionuclide and heavy metal pollutants from water by a combination of
sorption, chemical complexing, and filtration. The FF 1000 is contained within filter packs in
a filter press unit. After use, the filter packs are dewatered with compressed air. The end
products are water with reduced contaminant concentrations and spent filter cake (FF 1000) that
contains the contaminants.
The CPFM technology was demonstrated under the SITE program at the U.S. Department
of Energy's (DOE) Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS) (formerly the Rocky
Flats Plant) near Golden, Colorado. Over a 3-week period in September and October 1993,
about 10,000 gallons (37,850 liters) of uranium- and gross alpha-contaminated groundwater were
treated in the CPFM system. For the SITE demonstration three tests, consisting of a total of five
runs, were conducted. For the first test, consisting of three runs conducted at the same operating
conditions, the CPFM system removed 58 to 91 percent of uranium and 33 to 87 percent of gross
alpha contamination from groundwater that had no pretreatment. For the second test, consisting
of one run using groundwater pretreated with sodium sulfide, the removal efficiency was
improved to 95 percent for uranium and 94 percent for gross alpha contamination. Results for
the third test were inconclusive.
The average CPFM system discharge for the first test did not meet the Colorado Water
quality Control Commission standards for uranium and gross alpha concentrations (7 micrograms
per liter and 7 picoCuries per liter) in waters to be discharged from RFETS.
Evaluation of the CPFM technology against the nine criteria used by the EPA in evaluating
potential remediation alternatives indicates that the CPFM system provides both long- and short-
term protection of the environment, reduces contaminant mobility and volume, and presents few
risks to the community or the environment.
Potential sites for applying this technology include Superfund, DOE, U.S. Department of
Defense, and other hazardous waste sites where water is contaminated with radionuclides or
heavy metals. Economic data indicate that the groundwater remediation cost for a 100-gallon-per-
minute CPFM system could range from about $2 to $7 per 1,000 gallons, depending on
contaminated groundwater characteristics and duration of the remedial action (Table 4-1).
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-CO-0047 by PRC Environmental
Management, Inc. under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This
report covers a period from November 1991 to October 1993, and work was completed as of
April 1995.
IV
-------
Contents
Section
Notice jj
Foreword iii
Abstract jv
Figures vii
Tables viii
Acronyms & Abbreviations jx
Acknowledgments xj
1. Executive Summary \
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Technology Applications Analysis 1
1.3 Economic Analysis 2
1.4 Treatment Effectiveness 2
2. Introduction 3
2.1 Brief Description of the SITE Program and Reports 3
2.2 Purpose of the Innovative Technology Evaluation Report 4
2.3 Technology Description 4
2.3.1 Treatment Technology 4
2.3.2 System Components and Function 5
2.3.3 Key Features of the CPFM Technology 7
2.4 Key Contacts 10
3. Technology Application Analysis \\
3.1 Technology Evaluation \ \
3.1.1 Bench-Scale Study Results 11
3.1.2 SITE Demonstration Results 12
3.2 Evaluation of Technology Against RI/FS Criteria 12
3.3 Factors Influencing Performance 13
3.3.1 Influent Characteristics 13
3.3.2 Operating Parameters 13
3.3.3 Maintenance Requirements 13
-------
3.4 Site Characteristics 15
3.4.1 Support Systems 15
3.4.2 Site Area and Preparation 15
3.4.3 Site Access 15
3.4.4 Climate 15
3.4.5 Utilities 15
3.4.6 Services and Supplies 16
3.5 Material Handling Requirements 16
3.6 Personnel Requirements 16
3.7 Potential Community Exposures 16
3.8 Potential Regulatory Requirements 16
3.8.1 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act .. 16
3.8.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 18
3.8.3 Safe Drinking Water Act 19
3.8.4 Occupational Safety and Health Act 19
3.9 Availability, Adaptability, and Transportability of Equipment 19
3.10 Limitations of the Technology 19
3.11 Applicable Wastes 21
4. Economic Analysis 22
4.1 Basis of Economic Analysis 22
4.2 Cost Categories 24
4.2.1 Site Preparation Costs 24
4.2.2 Permitting and Regulatory Requirements 25
4.2.3 Capital Equipment 25
4.2.4 Startup 25
4.2.5 Labor 25
4.2.6 Consumables and Supplies 25
4.2.7 Utilities 26
4.2.8 Effluent Treatment and Disposal 26
4.2.9 Residual Waste Shipping and Handling 26
4.2.10 Analytical Services 26
4.2.11 Maintenance and Modifications 27
4.2.12 Demobilization 27
5. Treatment Effectiveness 28
5.1 Background 28
5.2 Review of SITE Demonstration 28
5.2.1 Site Preparation 28
5.2.2 Technology Demonstration 29
5.2.3 Operational and Sampling Problems and Variations from the Work Plan .... 29
5.2.4 Site Demobilization 30
5.3 Demonstration Methodology 30
5.3.1 Testing Approach 31
5.3.2 Sampling Analysis and Measurement Procedures 31
5.4 Review of Treatment Results 32
5.4.1 Summary of Results for Critical Parameters 32
5.4.2 Summary of Results for Noncritical Parameters 44
VI
-------
5.5 Conclusions 50
5.5.1 Primary Objectives 50
5.5.2 Secondary Objectives 50
6. Technology Status 51
7. References 52
Appendix A - Vendor Claims for the Technology 53
A.I Introduction 53
A.2 Colloid Polishing Filter Method 54
A.3 Design and Product Improvements 54
A.4 Applications of the System 57
A.5 Factors that Decrease Performance 57
A.6 Advantages of Methodology 59
Appendix B - Case Studies 70
B.I Introduction 70
B.2 Representative Case Examples 70
B.2.1 Uranium Wastewater 70
B.2.2 Treatment of Strontium-90, Yttrium-90 Contaminated Groundwater .... 70
B.2.3 Treatment of Contaminated Wastewater 70
B.2.4 Treatment ofLLRW Wastewater 71
B.2.5 Treatment of Oil Production Wastewater Norm 71
B.2.6 Remediation of Norm-Contaminated Wastewater 71
B.2.7 Molybdenum in Uranium Mine Groundwater 71
B.2.8 Removal of Selenium from Pit Water 71
B.2.9 Selenium in Oil Refinery Wastewater 77
B.2.10 Treatment of Chromium in Soil Washing Wastewater 77
B.2.11 Metals Roofing Manufacture - South Texas 77
B.2.12 Metals Finishing Wastewater Copper and Zinc 77
B.2.13 Hazardous Waste Incinerator Metals Wastewater Treatment 77
B.2.14 Treatment of Metals Wastewater for Volume Minimization 78
B.3 Performance and Cost Summary 78
B.4 Bibliography 73
Figures
Figure Page
2-1 CPFM Treatment Sustem 5
2-2 Schematic of TYpical Filter Plate and Filter Pack 8
2-3 Schematic of Modified Colloid Filter Unit 9
5-1 CPFM Treatment System 35
5-2 Sampling Design for Critical Parameters 38
5-3 Gross Alpha Concentrations for Runs 1 Through 4 39
5-4 Uranium Concentrations for Runs 1 Through 4 40
5-5 Gross Alpha Concentrations for Runs 1 Through 4 41
5-6 Uranium Concentrations for Run 5 42
A-l Comparison of the Particle Removal Size Range Using Conventional Treatment Versus
the CPFM 55
A-2 Flow Diagram Showing the Basic Treatment Train Used for the CPFM 66
vii
-------
Tables
Table
3-1 Evaluation Criteria for the CPFM System 14
3-2 Federal and State ARAR for the CPFM Technology 17
3-3 Treatment Standards and Influent Concentrations for CPFM SITE Demonstration 20
4-1 Costs Associated with the CPFM Technology 23
5-1 CPFM Technology Demonstration Summary of Analytical Methods 33
5-2 Analytical Results from the CPFM SITE Demonstration 36
5-3 Analytical Results for Uranium and Gross Alpha for Run 5 of the CPFM
SITE Demonstration 37
5-4 Removal Efficiency Results for Runs 1 Through 3 for the CPFM SITE Demonstrati .... 43
5-5 Analytical Results for Filter Pack Solids 45
5-6 Analytical Results for TCLP Extract Solutions 46
5-7 Analytical Results for Noncritical Parameters from Run 1 of the CPFM
SITE Demonstration 47
5-8 Analytical Results for Noncritical Parameters from Run 2 of the CPFM
SITE Demonstration 48
5-9 Analytical Results for Noncritical parameters from Run 3 of the CPFM
SITE Demonstration 49
5-10 Analytical Results for Noncritical Parameters from Run 4 of the CPFM
SITE Demonstration 51
5-11 Analytical Results for Noncritical Parameters from Run 5 of the CPFM
SITE Demonstration 52
5-12 Field Parameter Data form Run 3 of the CPFM SITE Demonstration 53
5-13 Field Parameter Data from Run 4 of the CPFM SITE Demonstration 54
5-14 Field parameters from run 5 of the cpfm site demonstration 55
5-15 Noncritical Metal Concentrations in Spent Filter Material from the CPFM
SITE Demonstration 57
5-16 Radionuclide Concentrations in Spent Filter Cake Solids from the CPFM
SITE Demonstration 58
5-17 Physical Characteristics of Solids from the CPFM SITE Demonstration 59
5-18 Analytical Results for TCLP Extract Solutions for the CPFM SITE Demonstration 59
5-19 Analytical Results for TCLP Extract Solutions for the CPFM SITE Demonstration 60
A-l Summary of 1994 CPFM Projects at FFT 68
B-l Summary of Sample Sources and Pollutants for Case Studies 72
B-2 Molybdenum Atomic Absorption Analysis Concentration 76
vin
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AA Atomic absorption
APHA American Public Health Association
ARARs Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
ATTIC Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center
AWWA American Water Works Association
CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health an Environment
CDH Colorado Department of Health
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERI Center for Environmental Research Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CPFM Colloid Polishing Filter Method
CWQCC Colorado Water Quality Control Commission
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
Eh Oxidation potential
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FF Filter Flow
FFT Filter Flow Technology, Inc.
FS Feasibility study
g/cc Grams per cubic centimeter
gpm Gallons per minute
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
IAG Interagency agreement
ICP Inductively coupled plasma
IM/IRA Interim measure/interim remedial action
ITER Innovative Technology Evaluation Report
ITPH Interceptor Trench Pump House
kg Kilogram
kg/cm2 Kilograms per square centimeter
kWh Kilowatt-hour
LLRW Low-level Radioactive Waste
Lpm Liters per minute
jug/L Micrograms per liter
MCL Maximum contaminant level
mg/L Milligrams per liter
mL/min Milliliters per minute
MOU Memorandum of understanding
mS MilliSiemens
IX
-------
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan
NORM Naturally occurring radioactive materials
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
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
OU Operable unit
pCi/g PicoCuries per gram
pCi/L PicoCuries per liter
PELT Paint filter liquids test
POTW Publicly owned treatment works
ppb Parts per billion
PPE Personal protective equipment
ppm Parts per million
psig Pounds per square inch, gauge
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
QA/QC Quality assurance/quality control
r2 Correlation coefficient
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFETS Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site
RI Remedial investigation
RREL Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SEP Solar evaporation ponds
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
SOP Standard operating procedure
SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act
TCLP Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
TDS Total dissolved solids
TOC Total organic carbon
TRU Transuranic
TSS Total suspended solids
/xg/g Microgram per gram
VISITT Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies
WEE Water Environment Federation
-------
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared under the direction of Ms. Annette Gatchett, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) project manager at the
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) in Cincinnati, Ohio. This report was prepared by
Dr. Theodore Ball and Ms. Tonia Garbowsky of PRC Environmental Management, Inc. (PRC).
Contributors and reviewers for this report were Ms. Gatchett, Mr. Gordon Evans, and Mr. Jackson
Hubbard of RREL, and Dr. Tod Johnson of Filter Flow Technology, Inc. The report was typed by
Ms. Robin Richey, edited by Mr. Butch Fries, and reviewed by Mr. Stanley Labunski and Mr.
Robert Foster of PRC. A peer review was conducted by Ms. Ann Leitzinger, EPA quality assurance
coordinator for the SITE program.
XI
-------
-------
Section 1
Executive Summary
This executive summary overview of the Colloid
Polishing Filter Method (CPFM) technology discusses its
applications, evaluates costs associated with the system,
and describes its effectiveness.
1.1 Introduction
The CPFM technology has been evaluated under the
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
program. The SITE program was developed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to
the mandate of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986. The program's
primary purpose is to maximize the use of alternative
treatment technologies. To this end, reliable
performance and cost data on innovative technologies are
developed during demonstrations where the technology
is used to treat a specific waste.
After the demonstration, EPA publishes an
Innovative Technology Evaluation Report (ITER)
designed to aid decision makers in evaluating the
technology for further consideration as an applicable
cleanup option. This report includes a review of the
technology application, an economic analysis of
treatment costs using the technology, and the results of
the demonstration.
The CPFM technology uses a proprietary compound
(Filter Flow [FF] 1000) that consists of inorganic, oxide-
based granules. FF 1000 is formulated to remove heavy
metals and radionuclides from water through a
combination of sorption, chemical complexing, and
filtration. The technology developer, Filter Flow
Technology, Inc. (FFT), states that sorption on the FF
1000 accounts for the majority of the removal action.
The CPFM process involves the following basic
steps: (1) contaminated water is pumped to a mixing
tank for chemical preconditioning (pH adjustment or
sodium sulfide addition), if necessary, to induce
formation of colloidal forms of pollutants; (2) suspended
solids are then removed by an inclined plate
miniclarifier; (3) overflow water from the miniclarifier
is pumped through a microfiltration bag filter where
particles greater than 10 microns in diameter are
removed; (4) the water is pumped from the bag filters to
the colloid filter press units where heavy metals and
radionuclides are removed by the FF 1000; and (5)
treated water is pH adjusted prior to discharge.
Following treatment, sludge in the miniclarifier is
dewatered in the small sludge filter press using
compressed air. The filter packs are also dewatered
using compressed air to form a cake containing 60 to 70
percent solids. These two solid wastes are combined for
disposal.
1.2 Technology Applications Analysis
The technology demonstration had one primary
objective: to assess the technology's ability to remove
uranium and gross alpha contaminants to levels below
Colorado Water Quality Control Commission (CWQCC)
standards (7 micrograms per liter [jig/L] for uranium
and 7 picoCuries per liter [pCi/L] for gross alpha). In
addition, the technology demonstration had several
secondary objectives. These are to (1) document the
operating conditions and identify operational needs, such
as utility and labor requirements, for the treatment
system; (2) estimate costs associated with operation of
the CPFM technology; (3) assess the technology's ability
to remove other radionuclides (plutonium, americium,
and radium); and (4) evaluate the disposal options for
prefiltered solids, including miniclarifier and bag filter
solids and spent filter cake from the colloid filter unit.
For the demonstration, approximately 10,000 gallons
(37,850 liters) of water containing about 100 /ug/L of
-------
uranium and 100 pCi/L of gross alpha contamination
were treated in three tests. The first test consisted of
three runs of 4 hours each, treating about 5 gallons per
minute (gpm) (18.9 liters per minute [Lpm]). For the
second test, also run for 4 hours at 5 gpm (18.9 Lpm),
the influent water was pretreated with sodium sulfide.
The third test was a 15-hour run designed to determine
the amount of contamination each filter pack is capable
of treating. Results of the tests are discussed in detail in
Section 5.0, Treatment Effectiveness.
The CPFM technology was evaluated against nine
criteria used for decision making in the Superfund
remedy selection process (see Section 3.2). This
evaluation indicates that the CPFM system can provide
short- and long-term protection of human health and the
environment by removing radionuclide contamination
from water and concentrating it in spent filter cake.
Operation of the CPFM system must also comply
with several statutory and regulatory requirements.
Among these are the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); and the
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). These
statutes and regulations should be considered before use
of any remediation technology.
1.3 Economic Analysis
Using information obtained from the SITE
demonstration, an economic analysis was conducted to
examine 12 separate cost categories for the CPFM
system treating contaminated groundwater at a Superfund
site. The analysis examined three cases in which the
system treated water for 1, 5, and 10 years. For all
treatment durations, a 100-gpm (378 Lpm) system was
used in the cost calculations. Costs are summarized
below.
Fixed costs for all three scenarios were the same.
Therefore, for the 1-year treatment scenario, the costs
are dominated by capital equipment and site preparation.
This scenario resulted in a cost of approximately $7 per
1,000 gallons (3,785 liters) of water treated. Costs for
the longer treatment duration scenarios decreased to $2
per 1,000 gallons (3,785 liters) for 5 or 10 years of
treatment. The chemical costs are estimated by FFT to
be in the range of $0.50 to $1.10 per 1,000 (3,785
liters) gallons depending on the site, duration of the
project and gpm treated.
1.4 Treatment Effectiveness
Based on the SITE demonstration, the following
conclusions may be drawn about the effectiveness of the
CPFM technology:
Results of chemical analysis for groundwater
samples collected from the Rocky Flats Plant
(RFETS) site show that the CPFM system
removed from 58 to 91 percent of uranium and
from 33 to 87 percent of gross alpha
contamination from groundwater that had not
been pretreated. However, this effluent did not
achieve the CWQCC standards for waters
discharged from RFETS.
For one run conducted using groundwater
pretreated with sodium sulfide the removal
efficiency was improved to 95 percent for
uranium and 94 percent for gross alpha
contamination. However, these results are based
on single, rather than duplicate composite
samples. This effluent did achieve the CWQCC
standards for waters discharged from RFETS.
The CPFM treatment system's performance was
found to be inconsistent at constant operating
conditions.
Treatment residuals (spent filter cake) do not
require treatment to meet toxicity characteristic
leaching procedure (TCLP) limits for metals.
Results from 15 additional tests, conducted
independently by the developer at a variety of facilities,
are discussed in Appendix B. In summary, results from
these additional tests indicate that the CPFM system is
capable of removing heavy metals from waste streams
and groundwater, and of producing effluent with less
than 1 milligram per liter (mg/L) of several heavy
metals.
-------
Section 2
Introduction
This section provides background information about
the SITE program, discusses the purpose of this ITER,
and describes the CPFM technology. For additional
information about the SITE program, this technology,
and the demonstration site, key contacts are listed at the
end of this section.
2.1 Brief Description of the SITE Program and
Reports
SARA mandates that 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 response to this mandate, the SITE
program was established by EPA's Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (OSWER) and Office of
Research and Development (ORD). The SITE program
promotes the development, demonstration, and use of
new or innovative technologies to clean up Superfund
sites across the country.
The SITE program's primary purpose is to maximize
the use of alternatives in cleaning up hazardous waste
sites by encouraging the development and demonstration
of innovative treatment and monitoring technologies. It
consists of the Demonstration Program, the Emerging
Technology Program, the Monitoring and Measurement
Technologies Program, and the Technology Transfer
Program. These programs are discussed in more detail
below.
The objective of the Demonstration Program is to
develop reliable performance and cost data on innovative
treatment technologies so that potential users may assess
the technology's site-specific applicability. Technologies
evaluated are either currently available or are close to
being available for remediation of Superfund sites. SITE
demonstrations are conducted on hazardous waste sites
under conditions that closely simulate full-scale
remediation, thus assuring the usefulness and reliability
of information collected. Data collected are used to
assess the performance of the technology, the potential
need for pre- and post-treatment processing of wastes,
potential operating problems, and the approximate costs.
The demonstrations also allow evaluation of long-term
risks and operating and maintenance (O&M) costs.
The Emerging Technology Program focuses on
successfully proven, bench-scale technologies that are in
an early stage of development involving pilot-scale or
laboratory testing. Successful technologies are
encouraged to advance to the Demonstration Program.
Existing technologies that improve field monitoring
and site characterization are identified in the Monitoring
and Measurement Technologies Program. New
technologies that provide faster, more cost-effective
contamination and site assessment data are supported by
this program. The Monitoring and Measurement
Technologies Program also formulates the protocols and
standard operating procedures for demonstrating methods
and equipment.
The Technology Transfer Program disseminates
technical information on innovative technologies in the
Demonstration, Emerging Technology, and Monitoring
and Measurement Technologies Programs through
various activities. These activities increase the
awareness and promote the use of innovative
technologies for assessment and remediation at
Superfund sites. The goal of technology transfer
activities is to develop communication among individuals
requiring up-to-date technical information.
Technologies are selected for the SITE
Demonstration Program through annual requests for
proposals. ORD staff review the proposals, including
-------
any unsolicited proposals that may be submitted
throughout the year, to determine which technologies
show the most promise for use at Superfund sites.
Technologies chosen must be at the pilot- or full-scale
stage, must be innovative, and musthave some advantage
over existing technologies. Mobile technologies are of
particular interest.
Once EPA has accepted a proposal, cooperative
agreements between EPA and the developer establish
responsibilities for conducting the demonstrations and
evaluating the technology. The developer is responsible
for demonstrating the technology at the selected site and
is expected to pay any costs for transport, operations,
and removal of the equipment. EPA is responsible for
project planning, site preparation, sampling and analysis,
quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC),
preparing reports, disseminating information, and
transporting and disposing of untreated and treated waste
materials.
The results of the CPFM technology demonstration
are published in two documents: the SITE technology
capsule and the ITER. The SITE technology capsule
provides relevant information on the technology,
emphasizing key features of the results of the SITE field
demonstration. The ITER is discussed in the following
section. Both the SITE technology capsule and the ITER
are intended for use by remedial managers making a
detailed evaluation of the technology for a specific site
and waste.
2.2 Purpose of the Innovative Technology
Evaluation Report
The ITER provides information on the CPFM
technology and includes a comprehensive description of
the demonstration and its results. The ITER is intended
for use by EPA remedial project managers, EPA on-
scene coordinators, contractors, and other decision
makers for implementing specific remedial actions. The
ITER is designed to aid decision makers in evaluating
specific technologies for further consideration as an
option in a particular cleanup operation. This report
represents a critical step in the development and
commercialization of a treatment technology. To
encourage the general use of demonstrated technologies,
EPA provides information regarding the applicability of
each technology to specific sites and wastes. Therefore,
the ITER includes information on cost and site-specific
characteristics. It also discusses advantages,
disadvantages, and limitations of the technology. Each
SITE demonstration evaluates the performance of a
technology in treating a specific waste. The waste
characteristics of other sites may differ from the
characteristics of the treated waste. Therefore,
successful field demonstration of a technology at one site
does not necessarily ensure that it will be applicable at
other sites. Data from the field demonstration may
require extrapolation for estimating the operating ranges
in which the technology will perform satisfactorily.
Only limited conclusions can be drawn from a single
field demonstration.
2.3 Technology Description
In October 1991, a bench-scale study of the CPFM
technology was conducted at the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) RFETS in Golden, Colorado, where
water is contaminated with radionuclides. In September
1993, a full-scale demonstration was also conducted at
this site based on a cooperative effort involving the EPA
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL), DOE,
the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE), (formerly the Colorado
Department of Health [CDH]) and EPA Region 8. The
evaluation of the CPFM technology is based on the
results of the SITE demonstration and the bench-scale
study at the RFETS site.
2.3.1 Treatment Technology
The CPFM technology is designed to remove trace
to moderate levels of nontritium radionuclides and heavy
metal pollutants from water. Specially designed filter
plates are used to support filter packs that contain FF
1000, the active ingredient in the CPFM technology.
FF 1000 is an insoluble, inorganic, oxide-based,
granular material that removes radionuclides and heavy
metals from moderately contaminated water through a
combination of chemical and physical processes. End
products include the spent filter pack that contains
contaminants and treated water with reduced
concentrations of heavy metals or radionuclide
pollutants.
According to the technology developer, removal of
contaminants by FF 1000 is achieved through a
combination of chemical complexing, adsorption,
absorption, and filtration. By optimizing the water pH
to favor contaminant insolubility, contaminant colloids
and colloidal aggregates can be formed upstream of the
filter beds and then removed by the FF 1000. The
-------
reaction mechanisms active within the filter pack are
described by FFT as follows:
application are selected based on results of bench-scale
studies.
Chemical Completing. Heavy metal and
radionuclide pollutants in water form charge-
dependent, stable complexes with certain
inorganic compounds. These complexes
associate with the inorganic, oppositely charged
FF 1000 to form insoluble colloids, colloidal
aggregates, or larger precipitating particles. An
estimated 10 percent of the reaction mechanism
is attributable to chemical complexing.
Adsorption. Adsorption refers to the
replacement of positively charged ions on
mineral surfaces by metal cations in solution.
The sorption of inorganic ions is largely
determined by complex chemical equilibria
involving the charge and size of the element or
complex ion, the nature of the sorbing material,
and the pH of the aqueous solution. The
properties of the surface that influence inorganic
sorption include net surface charge, the presence
and configuration of binding sites, and the pH
dependence of those sites. The structure of the
solid, whether crystalline or amorphous, may
also affect adsorption reactions. FF 1000 is
formulated to maximize adsorptive reactions
with metals and radionuclides. During CPFM
system operation, radionuclides adsorb to FF
1000 to form colloids. The adsorbed colloids
and ions electrostatically attach to the surface of
the filter bed material where they remain. An
estimated 75 percent of the reaction mechanism
is attributable to adsorption.
Absorption. Absorption refers to the
incorporation of ions or compounds into the
crystal lattice of the absorbing material. It is
estimated that less than 10 percent of the
reaction mechanism is attributable to absorption.
Filtration. The FF 1000 filter medium forms a
compact but porous bed that may filter out
micromolecular particles. An estimated 5
percent of the reaction mechanism is attributable
to filtration.
The principal operating parameters for the CPFM
technology are influent pH, chemical pretreatment dose,
and flow rate (which determines hydraulic retention
time). The optimum operating parameters for each
The influent pH level controls the formation of
insoluble contaminant complexes and colloids that are
available for retention by the FF 1000. Increasing or
decreasing the pH will affect the CPFM system by
altering contaminant chemistry. Typically, optimum pH
for contaminant removal is in the range of pH 8 to 9.
Flow rate through the CPFM system will determine
hydraulic retention time. Increasing or decreasing the
flow rate will affect treatment efficiency by changing the
time available for colloid formation and retention. A
flow rate of approximately 5 gpm (18.9 Lpm) has been
determined to be optimal for the existing, trailer-
mounted system.
2.3.2 System Components and Function
The CPFM system has several components: an
influent mixing tank, a miniclarifier with a filter press,
a bag filter, transfer pumps, colloid filter units, and an
effluent pH adjustment tank. All components of the
CPFM system that come in direct contact with the
contaminated water and filter cake are made of stainless
steel, Teflon, or plastic to minimize contamination of the
process stream by the construction materials. All
process equipment is mounted and operated on a trailer
bed.
A schematic diagram of the CPFM system is shown
in Figure 2-1. The major components of the system
include the following:
Influent Mixing Tank. The tank is constructed
of polyethylene and has a capacity of 200
gallons (757 liters). It is also equipped with a
mixer to promote adequate mixing of influent
and pH adjustment or pretreatment chemicals
(such as sodium sulfide).
Miniclarifier. The miniclarifier has a nominal
volume of 500 gallons (1,892 liters) and is
designed to allow bulk solids to settle out of the
influent prior to treatment in the CPFM system.
It is equipped with a mixer in the mixing section
should chemical addition be required. The
settling section of the clarifier is equipped with
inclined plates that improve particle settling.
-------
M1NICLARJFIER
BAG
FILTER
COLLOID
FILTER
PRESS
UNITS
EFFLUENT
pH ADJUSTMENT
TANK
pH ADJUSTMENT OR
CHEMICAL PRETREATMENT
TO DISCHARGE
LEGEND
XI VALVE
I
MIXER
FLOW DIRECTION
SAMPLE
PORT
PUMP
NOTE: COLLOID FILTER UNITS CAN BE OPERATED
IN SERIES OR PARALLEL MODES.
(ONLY SERIES MODE SHOWN HERE)
Figure 2-1. CPFM Treatment System
-------
Bag Filter. Heavy duty filter cloths act as an
in-line screen to remove particles larger than 10
microns. The separated particles can be
removed from the bag filter for disposal. Spent
bag filters can also be disposed of with the
prefilter solids (miniclarifier and bag filter
solids).
Colloid Filter Unit. This is the principal
component of the CPFM system. The unit is 5
1/2 feet (1.67 meters) high and 3 feet (0.91
meters) square. A schematic drawing of the unit
is presented in Figure 2-2. It is preassembled,
and has few moving parts. It is equipped with
influent and effluent polyvinylchloride (PVC)
piping and valves. The filter plates are
positioned on vertical supporting bars and
pressed together using a hand-controlled
hydraulic pump to approximately 50,000 pounds
per square inch (psi) (3,515 kilograms per
square centimeter) of pressure. Filter plates are
26 inches (0.66 meters) square, 2 inches (5
centimeters) thick, and are constructed of
plastic. A schematic drawing of a filter plate is
shown in Figure 2-3. Each filter pack is
constructed of a durable,, fibrous, polymer
material (Pulplus). Each pack contains a
premeasured amount of FF 1000 (approximately
0.364 cubic feet) (0.01 cubic meters). The filter
packs are placed horizontally between facing
plates. Each pack is equipped with edge tabs for
handling.
Effluent pH Adjustment Tank. This tank is
constructed of polyethylene and has a capacity of
200 gallons (757 liters). It is also equipped with
a mixer to promote adequate mixing of sulfuric
or hydrochloric acid solution and effluent.
Chemical Feed Systems. The CPFM system
also includes two 20-gallon (75.7 liter) buckets,
each equipped with a small (less than 5 gpm)
(18.9 liters per minute [Lpm]) metering pump
used to store and pump the sodium hydroxide
and acid solutions for pH adjustment, if
necessary.
Transfer Pumps. Transfer pumps are required
for pumping water from: (1) the source to the
influent mixing tank; (2) the influent mixing
tank to the miniclarifier; (3) the miniclarifier to
the bag filter and colloid filter unit; and (4) the
pH adjustment tank to discharge. These
diaphragm pumps have a rated capacity of 25
gpm (95 Lpm). The transfer pump to the
colloid filter unit is controlled with an air
pressure gauge that operates between 5 and 100
psi (0.35 to 7.03 kilograms per square
centimeter). (The other pumps are equipped
with a rotameter downstream of the discharge
side to monitor flow.)
During system operation, water is pumped to a 200-
gallon (757 liter) mixing tank for pH adjustment and
chemical pretreatment, if necessary, to adjust water
chemistry to the optimum range for contaminant removal
by the FF 1000 in the colloid filter packs. After
pretreatment, the water is pumped to a miniclarifier that
removes suspended solids. Settled solids from the
bottom of the clarifier are dewatered in a small filter
press attached to the clarifier. The solids are then
collected and stored in a solids disposal container.
Effluent from the miniclarifier is pumped through a bag
filter to remove additional solids greater than 10 microns
in size. Effluent from the bag filter is routed to the
colloid filter press unit. Each colloid filter press unit is
made up of a series of four filter plates containing three
colloid filter packs. One filter pack is located between
each set of plates within the filter press unit. Once the
filter packs have been inserted between the filter plates,
hydraulic pressure is applied to the plates. Pressure seal
O-rings contained in the plates form a water tight seal
between the plates, holding water within the unit.
The pretreated water is dispersed throughout the
filter packs, where physical and chemical mechanisms
remove contaminants.
Water passing through the filter packs is pumped to
a final pH adjustment tank. If necessary, effluent from
the colloid filter packs is treated in this tank to reduce
the effluent pH before discharge.
2.3.3 Key Features of the CPFM Technology
Several unique features of the CPFM technology
distinguish it from most small-size particle removal
methods such as ion exchange, reverse osmosis, and
ultrafiltration. According to FFT, the CPFM technology
leads to:
Reduced capital costs through higher throughput
and simpler and cheaper equipment
-------
INFLUENT-
FILTER PACK
FILTER PACK
FILTER PACK
FILTER
PLATE
(TYP.)
EFFLUENT
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE:
THIS CONFIGURATION EMPLOYS THREE
FILTER BEDS, EACH WITH ONE FILTER
PACK, OPERATING IN SERIES,
CONFIGURATION A (SEE SECTION
2.3.2. FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION
CONCERNING BED CONFIGURATIONS).
Figure 2-2. Schematic of Modified Colloid Filter Unit
-------
TAB (TYP.)
0-RING SEAL'
TOP VIEW
EFFLUENT FROM
PREVIOUS PLATE
F
INFLUENT TO
NEXT PLATE
FRONT AND PROFILE VIEW
TYPICAL TWO-SIDED
FILTER PLATE
SCALE: 1 = 10
PLAN
SECTION A-A
TYPICAL FILTER PACK
NOT TO SCALE
TYPICAL TWO-SIDED
FILTER PLATE
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 2-3. Schematic of Typical Filter Plate and Filter Pack
-------
Reduced operation and maintenance costs
through reliability and simplicity of the system
Reduced quantity of solids for disposal generated
due to the small-volume and potentially
regenerable filter bed
Improved removal efficiencies for multivalent,
chelated, or complexed metals and radionuclides
2.4 Key Contacts
Additional information on the FFT CPFM
technology and the SITE program can be obtained from
the following sources:
The FFT CPFM Technology
Tod Johnson
Filter Flow Technology, Inc.
122 Texas Avenue
League City, TX 77573
713-332-3438
FAX: 713-332-3644
The SITE Program
Robert A. Olexsey
Director, Superfund Technology
Demonstration Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7861
FAX: 513-569-7620
Annette Gatchett
EPA SITE Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7697
FAX: 513-569-7620
Information on the SITE program is available
through the following on-line information
clearinghouses:
The Alternative Treatment Technology
Information Center (ATTIC) (operator: 301-670-
6294) is a comprehensive, automated
information retrieval system that integrates data
on hazardous waste treatment technologies into
a centralized, searchable source. This data base
provides summarized information on innovative
treatment technologies.
The Vendor Information System for Innovative
Treatment Technologies (VISITT) (hotline: 800-
245-4505) data base contains information on 154
technologies offered by 97 developers.
The OSWER CLU-In electronic bulletin board
contains information on the status of SITE
technology demonstrations. The system operator
can be reached at 301-585-8368.
Technical reports may be obtained by contacting the
Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI),
26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio
45268, at 513-569-7562.
10
-------
Section 3
Technology Application Analysis
This section of the report evaluates the general
applicability of the CPFM technology to contaminated
waste sites. The analysis is based primarily on the SITE
bench-scale study and demonstration results because
limited information was available on other applications
of the technology. A detailed discussion of the
demonstration results is presented in Section 5.0 of this
report. The developer's claims regarding the
applicability and performance of the CPFM technology
are included in Appendix A. Several case studies
provided by the developer are presented in Appendix B.
3.1 Technology Evaluation
The objectives of the CPFM technology demonstration,
conducted under the SITE Program., were to:
Assess the technology's ability to remove
uranium and gross alpha contaminants to levels
below CWQCC standards
Document the operating conditions and identify
operational needs, such as utility and labor
requirements, for the treatment system
Estimate costs associated with operation of the
CPFM technology
Assess the technology's ability to remove other
radionuclides (plutonium, americium, and
radium)
Evaluate the disposal options for prefiltered
solids (miniclarifier and bag filter solids) and
spent filter cake from the colloid filter unit
The effectiveness of the CPFM technology is
summarized below. The assessment of the technology's
effectiveness is based on the results of the bench-scale
study and the SITE demonstration.
3.1.1 Bench-Scale Study Results
FFT conducted a bench-scale study of the CPFM
technology at RFETS between September 30 and
October 2, 1991. The equipment for this study included
a single-flanged filtering vessel representing one filter
bed (0.36 cubic feet) (0.008 cubic meters). FF 1000
was slurried into a polypropylene filter mesh within the
vessel. Approximately 40 gallons (151 liters) of
groundwater from the interceptor trench pump house
(ITPH) were treated using this configuration for this
study. Flow rates during this bench-scale study varied
from 75 to 460 milliliters per minute (mL/min). The
study used interceptor trench water spiked with up to 30
pCi/L of plutonium 239, americium 241, and radium
226. The water was spiked so that removal efficiencies
could be more easily determined for plutonium,
americium, and radium since their concentrations in the
ITPH water were relatively low. The trench water
contained about 100 pCi/L uranium and 100 pCi/L gross
alpha and so did not require spiking for these
components. Eight test runs were conducted to treat the
spiked interceptor trench water. During the tests,
several parameters including influent pH, flow rate
through the FF 1000, and chemical pretreatment using
sodium sulfide or sodium bisulfite were varied to
determine optimum operating conditions for the CPFM
technology.
The results of the test runs demonstrated that the
system effectively removed uranium, plutonium, and
americium from the ITPH water at ambient pH without
chemical pretreatment. However, the system did not
effectively remove radium from water under any
circumstances. Test results also show that chemical
11
-------
pretreatment with sodium sulfide versus no pretreatment
provided some improvement in removal efficiencies. In
addition, reduced flow rates, resulting in increased
interaction time for water and FF 1000, improved
removal efficiencies.
3.1.2 SITE Demonstration Results
The SITE demonstration of the CPFM technology
was conducted at RFETS over a 3-week period in
September and October 1993. During the
demonstration, the CPFM system treated about 10,000
gallons (37,850 liters) of groundwater contaminated with
radionuclides. The principal groundwater contaminant,
uranium, was present at a concentration of about 100
jug/L. Other radionuclides were present at
concentrations of about 0.02 pCi/L for plutonium, 0.02
pCi/L for americium, and 0.10 pCi/L for radium.
Contaminated water was pumped from the ITPH
house to 500,000-gallon (1,892,500 liters) tanks used by
RFETS to store ITPH water, one of which stored
influent for the CPFM system. Treated effluent was
routed back to a second 500,000-gallon (1,892,500 liter)
tank.
The demonstration consisted of three tests conducted
in five test runs. The first test consisted of three runs of
4 hours each, treating about 5 gpm (18.9 Lpm). For the
second test, also run for 4 hours at 5 gpm (18.9 Lpm),
the influent water was treated with sodium sulfide in the
pretreatment tanks to change the oxidation state of the
radioactive metals in the water. The third test was a
15-hour run designed to determine the amount of
contamination each filter pack is capable of treating.
During the demonstration, samples were collected of
untreated influent, pretreated water after passing through
the miniclarifier and bag filters, and effluent that had
passed through the filter packs. Samples were analyzed
to determine the technology's effectiveness. Adjustment
of the pH was not required at RFETS because the
influent water was within the optimum pH range (7.5 to
9) for the technology. The pH of the effluent water was
monitored in the effluent pH adjustment tank and treated
to reduce the pH to its original level.
Section 5.0 of this report discusses the results of the
demonstration in greater detail. Key findings of the
demonstration are summarized as follows:
3.2
For the first test of three runs, the CPFM
system demonstrated a range of removal
efficiencies for uranium (58 to 91 percent) and
gross alpha (33 to 87 percent). These removal
efficiencies did not achieve CWQCC standards
for off-site discharge. Variation in removal
efficiency during the demonstration is not
explained by operational data.
For the second test, consisting of one run using
sodium sulfide chemical pretreatment of influent,
the CPFM system achieved removal efficiencies
of 95 percent for uranium and 94 percent for
gross alpha contamination. Using chemical
pretreatment, the CPFM system was capable of
meeting applicable CWQCC standards.
The concentrations of plutonium, americium,
and heavy metals in influent were near detection
limits. Therefore, the ability of the CPFM
system to remove these contaminants could not
be evaluated. The system was not successful in
removing radium from RFETS groundwater.
Results from the toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure (TCLP) evaluation of the spent filter
packs without stabilizing agent showed that the
packs did not contain leachable metals, uranium,
or gross alpha contamination.
Evaluation of Technology Against RI/FS
Criteria
Nine evaluation criteria have been developed by EPA
to address the requirements of CERCLA and additional
technical and policy considerations that have proven
important for selecting among potential remedial
alternatives. These criteria serve as the basis for
conducting bench-scale testing during the remedial
investigation (RI) at a hazardous waste site, for
conducting the detailed analysis during the feasibility
study (FS), and for subsequently selecting an appropriate
remedial action. Each SITE technology is evaluated
against the nine EPA criteria because these technologies
may be considered as potential remedial alternatives.
The nine evaluation criteria are:
Overall protection of human health and the
environment
12
-------
Compliance with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs)
Long-term effectiveness and permanence
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume
Short-term effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
State acceptance
Community acceptance
Table 3-1 presents the results of this evaluation. The
evaluation presented in the table indicates that the CPFM
system is capable of providing both short- and long-term
protection of the environment by removing contaminants
from groundwater and concentrating them in the filter
packs.
3.3 Factors Influencing Performance
Several factors influence the performance of the
CPFM technology. These factors can be grouped into
three categories: (1) influent characteristics, (2)
operating parameters, and (3) maintenance requirements.
This section discusses these factors.
3.3.1 Influent Characteristics
The CPFM technology is capable of treating a range
of contaminated waters containing radionuclides or heavy
metals. Under a given set of operating conditions,
contaminant removal is a function of the chemical form
of the contaminant, with removal efficiencies being
highest for radionuclides and metals that form colloids or
colloidal aggregates.
Contaminant concentrations also affect treatment
system effectiveness. The system is designed to remove
trace to moderate levels (less than 1,000 parts per
million [ppm]) of radionuclides and heavy metal
pollutants from water that has been prefiltered and has
low total organic carbon (TOC) and low total dissolved
solids (TDS) content. The CPFM system is most
effective when operated as a polishing filter for strict
heavy metal and radionuclide discharge limitation
situations. High levels of contaminants may overload
the filter packs and require a significant increase in filter
pack replacement or regeneration costs.
Liquid phase organic compounds at concentrations in
excess of a few ppm are also known to reduce the
CPFM treatment system's ability to remove metals and
radionuclides by occupying sorption sites in the FF
1000. The concentrations of organic compounds in the
interceptor trench water are well below this level.
Therefore, interference due to organic compounds was
not anticipated during the demonstration.
3.3.2 Operating Parameters
Operating parameters can be varied during the
treatment process to achieve desired removal
efficiencies. The principal operating parameters for the
CPFM system are influent pH, chemical pretreatment
dose, and flow rate.
Influent pH and chemical pretreatment affect
contaminant speciation, solubility, and colloid formation.
The underlying assumption in using the CPFM system is
that heavy metal and radionuclide pollutants in water
exist as colloids, colloidal aggregates in association with
inorganic or organic particles, and as inorganic ions. By
optimizing the water pH and chemistry conditions to
favor particle attraction, it is possible to shift the
equilibrium toward formation of colloids and colloidal
aggregates. These forms of the contaminants can then
be removed by the FF 1000 through chemical
complexing, sorption, and filtration.
Flow rate through the CPFM system determines the
residence time for water within the filter packs. As
shown in bench-scale testing, decreasing the flow rate
from 460 to 75 mL/min improved treatment efficiency.
If residence times are long enough, equilibrium
conditions would be approached and increased residence
time would not further improve removal efficiencies.
Flow rates for the demonstration were based on results
of the bench-scale studies and were not investigated
further during the demonstration.
3.3.3 Maintenance Requirements
The maintenance requirements for the CPFM system
summarized below are based on discussions with FFT
during and after the SITE demonstration. Regular
maintenance by trained personnel is essential for the
successful operation of the CPFM system. Overall, the
construction of the CPFM system is mechanically simple
and requires minimal maintenance. The only major
13
-------
> O
c?S.
as
Q. o
Q) 3
CD ^
S o
DcE
<
CD
CL
-
CO
II
CD q;
Q) O
CD Q)
cT Q-
q^ CD
CD "O
QJ CD
ct ^
3' Q-
CQ CO
CQ O
s *:
CD 0>
81
CQ 3
T3 t"
3 3
o
c
3
Q.
m
CD
o
3"
Q)
Q)
Q.
qi 3 o ^
^ o o ^*
CD Ji 3 Q)
T3 0 at CO
8 1| a
sis
? 8.3
CO
cr
< o ป q^ Q. GO o 5 5 cฐ Z
a ฐ O CD tD < -* 3 3 3 o
ฃป. 3 O Q> W CO r-t- ^ ^ <
CD nt ^ CQ' Sf CD^QJ^'Q)
^ 5> CQ ,- :i to o 2 o o Q-
3 -o -S o 3 3- 3 ฃ 3 <
= q- a. 3 CD w q CD
ฃ o ฐ ~ |-~ c ฐ ฃ
CD -h ฐ CQ ft I-*
ฐ- < 5' = 9L
3 ^
Ml If SHH
CD. 2 t. CD 5. ^ 0 CD q-
"5. 9 3
0) Q) fl) -h
o cu =; =j
ง dg 5 sr
W U. CD ^ _,
< C -D
< ^' Q)
rt-' CD O
3" CO 7T
3 CL 3D O Q) 3D
5f9||8
5- ฐ > ^ c ฐ-
O CO -^ O ^- C
*""^ Q) ZZ O^ QJ
O ~~ ^ g_ CD c/T
to CL <
CT
T3 co co o q 3D
lll|ll
"i!|f8
CD 5 2 o
" 3 3
co
3
CT
gO 5' CL-D <
q. ^ -D ง. o o
-J ^- ^ ^ ^T ^
-. -J (p -J CD ^-
g CD 3CQ o CD
O CD CD CO
CQ 3 Q-
"5 EU
5'
3
Q. q o cj. m
Q) ' Q) ^ ~*^
CO CD 3j" CD
O O~ CO
3 CQ w
Q) "* O
co-h^a ~^ r-ป.
ฐ w
CQ^'OCD3"CDCTCDQ)'XJ
1 l|i!S?M
I ls"I|li&
| 5' S g- g ป ซ? ป
1 =3 mงS?|
" i. 3 S
< '
Qi' c a. 3 ^ m
E- s ป o _. 5
3" 3 O T- .-
a ^- 3- co J 5
C Q) r+ -ป, CB
3=1 O) CD 2.
to SJ Q-
Q, ซ> P CD 0
3 =: S g
3 -3
CQ ~ a-^-
o w & CD'
co -* ^* co
co O
1 i ^2 8
* r-J- CD q co
CD " -3 CL
- T3 CO C
Q) Q) rt- Q)
cT^S-"
C/) ^^ . _.
^. (/)
S ^
CL
0 5' CT 0 3D
0) J < * CD
0 CO 0 Q.
*"0 S 0 C
-, CD 0 5 0
3 3 = ^. CD
Q) "' 2 Q) CO
^ -H 5 q .
CD 3 J <
= =f ^ 5' o
Q>_ tO Q) Q) c7
r" *"+ r* ^
0 o' S
3 3 f
S*O5'Q-OCDOT3^
to-h3coxoo=".
"rH.-D 3. 3 TD 3 Sf3
i^nniii
1 i s:|S-
^ a 3 o-< g
5- w
3
i. I PI'S 8
f* Q> 3 3- ^- CO "
(ft CQ 3 CD =: 2;
w _ o ^ 3.
li:gliS
D[ g. < -^ 0 .<-
CO -i
3 CC =: ^
3 3 O r+ -ป
- CQ 0 0 b
o <" o
3 N> 0
3, Q) r; Q) o T3 ซ ^;
tOcQ^'OOCU
ฃ. 3 E_ Q- JJ ^ o 3
-;Oo;i3oO33
m' 2^ CO r* -* Q. CD
TJ 8 0 ' < 3D g 9:
ga^S^SsS.
3 Q) ^ Q. 0
S.-< CD > 3
CO 0)
co
-^ O 3 3" -i CD ^
^ Q) CD CD 2 5'
3" Cti CD g CD 3
03 n> qi q 2- S' o>
T3 0 3; 3 fl> S.
C 0 co 3 Q. CO CO
ฐ" -S C r+ ^
fj- S- 7T 3 0 5
i3 CP CD ^ ri
CL^-< '
m ^ T>
" 3 0) CD S*
O Q. 3 O <
! ? i !' i
3 ^* 2,
7
Compliance with
Federal ApplicabI
or Relevant and
Appropriate
Requirements
(ARARs)
CD -
m
W -ป> |
3 0> " CO
0) 2 ^' '
CD ฐ~ 9 CD*
2 3 ^
CD w ^
CO
<
s> *
H C Si . CD
z; g o T* Q.
CD ป D- O c
ป ฎ = *.o
g _| =/ 0. A
3 ? 0 ^ o
5 - 2.
(Q *
3"
o g
CD r*
3 ป
CD 3
CO 3
CO
3
o
CD
CD
3
at
2
o
o
CO
Q)
^
o
0 M
CD Jฃ
"O a>
ป c?
o
CD
> 0
0 O
O 3
CD 3
"S 3
ซ
3 5.
O ^*
CD <
Criteria
-i
Q)
CT
CD
CO
m
9L
c
Q)
6'
3
O
CD
3"
CD
O
Tl
CO
CO
CD
3
-------
system component that requires regular maintenance is
the filter packs within the colloid filter press unit, which
require periodic replacement or regeneration.
Filter packs will require replacement with new or
regenerated packs on a regular basis depending on the
size of the packs, the flow rate, and contaminant load.
Replacement frequency cannot be calculated until
contaminant concentrations, flow rate, and required
discharge limits are known.
Other system components, such as the influent
chemical pretreatment feed system, the effluent
acidification feed system, the miniclarifier sludge
removal system, and interconnecting piping and
appurtenances should be checked on a daily basis.
Sludge from the base of the miniclarifier may need to be
pumped to the filter press for dewatering and
containerized on a weekly basis depending on influent
quality. In addition, the feed pumps should be checked
at least once a month for proper operation and
calibration.
3.4 Site Characteristics
Site characteristics are important when considering
the CPFM technology because they can affect system
application. All site characteristics should be considered
before selecting the technology to remediate a specific
site. Site-specific factors include support systems, site
area and preparation, site access, climate, utilities, and
services and supplies.
3.4.1 Support Systems
To clean up contaminated water, a piping system
from the source of the water to the CPFM system must
be constructed. However, for small quantities of water,
a tanker truck may be employed to transport
contaminated water to the system. The CPFM system
may operate in continuous flow-through or batch mode
during site remediation. Therefore, an equalization tank
may be required for continuous mode to contain water if
flow rates are too low or during filter pack changeout.
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 onsite
laboratory should contain equipment needed for simple
analysis such as pH, oxidation potential (Eh)
conductivity, and temperature.
3.4.2 Site Area and Preparation
At the present time, the CPFM system is available in
only one size. This unit treated 5 gpm (18.9 Lpm)
during the demonstration. According to the technology
developer, this system may be refitted with larger pumps
that may treat water at flow rates of up to 25 gpm (94.6
Lpm). An area of approximately 2,000 square feet
(185.8 square meters) is required for setup of the 25-
gpm (94.6 Lpm) CPFM system, and includes space for
influent and effluent storage tanks and a small office.
The area should be relatively flat and should be paved or
gravel covered.
3.4.3 Site Access
Site access requirements for the CPFM system are
minimal. The site must be accessible to a 1-ton pickup
truck pulling a 30-foot (9.1 meter) trailer. The roadbed
must be able to support such a vehicle and trailer
delivering the CPFM system.
3.4.4 Climate
The CPFM system is not designed to operate at
temperatures near or below freezing. If such
temperatures are anticipated, the CPFM system and
associated storage tanks should be kept in a heated
shelter, such as a building or shed. In addition, piping
to the system must be protected from freezing.
3.4.5 Utilities
The CPFM system requires potable water, electricity,
and compressed air for operation. Potable water is
required for a safety shower, an eye wash station,
personnel decontamination, and cleaning sampling
equipment. Electrical power for the CPFM system and
support facilities can be provided by portable generators
or 220-volt, 3-phase electrical service. Total power
usage is expected to be less than 1 kilowatt per day for
operation. Compressed air at 100 psi (7 kilograms per
square centimeter) is required to operate the diaphragm
pumps used by the system. Compressed air can be
provided by a portable, gas powered compressor.
15
-------
A telephone connection or cellular phone is required to
order supplies, contact emergency services, and provide
normal communications.
3.4.6 Services and Supplies
The main service required by the CPFM system is
replacement or regeneration of the filter packs. FFT
provides replacement filter packs arid the system
required for filter pack regeneration. Additional
chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid for
influent and effluent pH adjustment and sodium sulfide
for chemical pretreatment can be supplied by FFT or
local vendors.
Complex laboratory services, such as metals and
radionuclide analyses, that cannot be conducted in an on-
site laboratory during monitoring programs require
contracting, preferably with a local, off-site analytical
laboratory.
3.5 Material Handling Requirements
The CPFM system generates spent filter cake as a
treatment residual that will require further processing,
handling, and disposal. Depending on the regulatory
requirements, the system effluent may also require
storage for analysis before it can be released or retreated
if required. Sodium hydroxide or sulfuric acid used for
influent and effluent pH adjustment and sodium sulfide
used for chemical pretreatment will also require proper
storage and handling.
The spent filter cake and sludge removed from the
miniclarifier filter press will be dewatered,
containerized, and analyzed to determine disposal
requirements. Acidic solutions resulting from filter pack
regeneration will be containerized and analyzed to
determine disposal requirements. Handling chemicals
such as sulfuric acid and sodium sulfide should not
create any waste streams that require disposal.
3.6 Personnel Requirements
Based on observations during the SITE
demonstration, the CPFM system will require two
technicians and one supervisor during operation. These
personnel should be capable of conducting the following
activities: (1) filling chemical feed tanks and adjusting
system flow rates; (2) operating the control panel on the
CPFM system; (3) collecting liquid samples and
performing simple chemical analysis (for example, pH,
Eh, conductivity, and temperature); (4) troubleshooting
minor operational problems; (5) collecting samples for
off-site analysis; and (6) changing out spent filter packs.
All personnel should have completed an OSHA initial
40-hour health and safety training course and an annual
8-hour refresher course, if applicable, before operating
the CPFM system at hazardous waste sites. They should
also participate in a medical monitoring program as
specified under OSHA requirements.
According to FFT, long-term operation of the system
may be automated for approximately $20,000. Operator
time could then be reduced to approximately half time
for one technician.
3.7 Potential Community Exposures
The CPFM system does not generate chemical or
particulate air emissions. Therefore, the potential for
on-site personnel or community exposure to airborne
contaminants is low. The CPFM system is designed to
sound an alarm and shut down automatically should a
malfunction occur, further reducing risk to on-site and
off-site personnel.
3.8 Potential Regulatory Requirements
This section discusses specific environmental
regulations pertinent to operation of the CPFM system,
including the transport, treatment, storage, and disposal
of wastes and treatment residuals, and analyzes these
regulations in view of the demonstration results. State
and local regulatory requirements, which may be more
stringent, also must be addressed by remedial managers.
ARARs include the following: (1) CERCLA; (2)
RCRA; (3) SDWA; and (4) OSHA regulations. These
four general ARARs are discussed below; specific
ARARs must be identified by remedial managers for
each site. Some specific federal and state ARARs that
may be applicable to the CPFM technology are identified
and discussed in Table 3-2.
3.8.1 Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLA, as amended by SARA, authorizes the
federal government to respond to releases or potential
16
-------
Table 3-2. Federal and State ARARs for the CPFM System
Process Activity
Waste
Processing
ARAR
RCRA 40 CFR
Part 264.190 to
Part 264.200 or
state equivalent
Description
Standards that
apply to the
treatment of
hazardous wastes
in tanks.
Basis Response
The treatment process Tank integrity must
occurs in a series of be monitored and
tanks. maintained to prevent
leakage or failure; the
tank must be
decontaminated when
processing is
complete.
Storage after
Processing
RCRA 40 CFR
Part 264.190 to
Part 264.199 or
state equivalent.
Standards that
apply to the storage
of hazardous
wastes in tanks.
Waste
Characterization
On-site Disposal
RCRA 40 CFR
Part 261.24 or
state equivalent.
RCRA 40 CFR
Part 264.300 to
Part 264.317 or
state equivalent.
Off-site Disposal SARA Section
Standards that
apply to waste
characteristics.
Standards that
apply to landfilling
hazardous waste.
Requirements for
the off-site disposal
of wastes from a
Superfund site.
The treated waste will
be placed in the interim
measure/interim
remedial action (IM/IRA)
tank.
Need to determine if
treated material is a
RCRA hazardous waste
or mixed waste.
If left on-site, the
treated waste may still
be a hazardous waste
or mixed waste subject
to land disposal
restrictions.
The waste is being
generated from a
response action
authorized under SARA.
The tanks will be
maintained in good
condition. The tanks
will be operated in
accordance with on-
site requirements (the
applicable RCRA Part
B permit).
Testing will be
conducted prior to
disposal.
Contact EPA Region 8
for on-site hazardous
waste disposal; also,
disposal will be in
accordance with DOE
RFP requirements.
Wastes must be
disposed of at a
RCRA-permitted
hazardous waste
facility.
Transportation
for off-site
Disposal
RCRA 40 CFR
Part 262 or state
equivalent.
Manifest
requirements and
packaging and
labeling
requirements prior
to transporting.
The used health and
safety gear must be
manifested and
managed as a
hazardous or mixed
waste. An identification
number must be
obtained from EPA.
Wastes and used PPE
are being stored at
RFETS.
17
-------
releases of any hazardous substance into the
environment, as well as to releases of pollutants or
contaminants that may present an imminent or significant
danger to public health and welfare or the environment.
As part of the requirements of CERCLA, EPA has
prepared the National Oil and Hazardous Substance
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) for hazardous
substance response. The NCP is codified in Title 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 300, and
delineates the methods and criteria used to determine the
appropriate extent of removal and cleanup for hazardous
waste contamination.
SARA amended CERCLA and directed EPA to do the
following:
Use remedial alternatives that permanently and
significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or
mobility of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants
Select remedial actions that protect human health
and the environment, are cost-effective, and
involve permanent solutions and alternative
treatment or resource recovery technologies to
the maximum extent possible
Avoid off-site transport and disposal of untreated
hazardous substances or contaminated materials
when practicable treatment technologies exist
(Section 121(b)).
In general, two types of responses are possible under
CERCLA: removals and remedial actions. The CPFM
technology is likely to be part of a CERCLA remedial
action. Remedial actions are governed by the SARA
amendments to CERCLA. As stated above, these
amendments promote remedies that permanently reduce
the volume, toxicity, and mobility of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
On-site remedial actions must comply with federal
and more stringent state ARARs. ARARs are
determined on a site-by-site basis and may be waived
under six conditions: (1) the action is an interim
measure, and the ARAR will be met at completion; (2)
compliance with the ARAR would pose a greater risk to
health and the environment than noncompliance; (3) it is
technically impracticable to meet the ARAR; (4) the
standard of performance of an ARAR can be met by an
equivalent method; (5) a state ARAR has not been
consistently applied elsewhere; and (6) ARAR
compliance would not provide a balance between the
protection achieved at a particular site and demands on
the Superfund for other sites. These waiver options
apply only to Superfund actions taken on site, and
justification for the waiver must be clearly demonstrated.
3.8.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act
RCRA, an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal
Act (SWDA), was passed in 1976 to address the problem
of how to safely dispose of the enormous volume of
municipal and industrial solid waste generated annually.
RCRA specifically addressed the identification and
management of hazardous wastes. The Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) greatly
expanded the scope and requirements of RCRA.
The presence of RCRA-defined hazardous waste
determines whether RCRA regulations apply to the
CPFM technology. RCRA regulations define hazardous
wastes and regulate their transport, treatment, storage,
and disposal. Wastes defined as hazardous under RCRA
include characteristic and listed wastes. Criteria for
identifying characteristic hazardous wastes are included
in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C. Listed wastes from
nonspecific and specific industrial sources, off-
specification products, spill cleanups, and other
industrial sources are itemized in 40 CFR Part 261,
Subpart D.
The CPFM demonstration system treated groundwater
collected in operable unit (OU) 4 interim measure and
interim remedial action (IM/IRA) storage tanks. These
tanks receive water collected in the ITPH. The ITPH is
part of the system of interceptor trenches constructed
around the solar evaporation ponds (SEP). The SEPs
have begun RCRA closure operations. Although wastes
have not been disposed of in the ponds since 1986, the
ponds are regulated under RCRA. However, water
collected in the interceptor trenchs and channeled to the
ITPH has not yet been declared a RCRA waste. In
addition, the spent filter packs were subjected to the
TCLP and the leachate analyzed for the characteristic
metals plus uranium and gross alpha. The leachate did
not contain detectable metal or radionuclide
contamination. Therefore, the spent filter packs
generated during the demonstration were not RCRA
wastes.
18
-------
3.8.3 Safe Drinking Water Act
The SDWA of 1974, as most recently amended by
the Safe Drinking Water Amendments of 1986, requires
EPA to establish regulations to protect human health
from contaminants in drinking water. The legislation
authorizes national drinking water standards and a joint
federal-state system for ensuring compliance with these
standards.
The National Primary Drinking Water Standards
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) are found in 40
CFR Parts 141 through 149. In addition, CWQCC has
set basin-specific discharge standards for the streams that
drain the area of RFETS. MCLs and CWQCC
standards are presented in Table 3-3. Water treated by
the CPFM system must meet these standards to be
discharged directly to the drainage. However, water
treated by the CPFM system during the demonstration
will be returned to a second IM/IRA receiving tank for
subsequent treatment by the RFETS water treatment
system before being discharged. Wash water from
decontami-nation was collected and stored in a
1,000-gallon (3,785 liter) storage tank. This water was
also routed to the IM/IRA receiving tank for treatment.
3.8.4 Occupational Safety and Health Act
CERCLA remedial actions and RCRA corrective
actions must be conducted in accordance with OSHA
requirements detailed in 29 CFR Parts 1900 through
1926, especially Part 1910.120, which provides for the
health and safety of workers at hazardous waste sites.
On-site construction activities at Superfund or RCRA
corrective action sites must be conducted in accordance
with 29 CFR Part 1926, which provides safety and
health regulations for constructions sites. State OSHA
requirements, which may be significantly stricter than
federal standards, must also be met.
All technicians operating the CPFM system are
required to have completed an OSHA training course
and must be familiar with all OSHA requirements
relevant to hazardous waste sites. For most sites,
minimum personal protective equipment (PPE) for
technicians will include gloves, hard hats, steel toe
boots, and coveralls. Depending on contaminant types
and concentrations, additional PPE may be required.
The CPFM unit and support equipment can be mounted
and operated on the bed of a trailer. All equipment on
the system meets OSHA requirements for safety of
operation.
3.9 Availability, Adaptability, and
Transportability of Equipment
Currently, only the one trailer-mounted CPFM
system used for the demonstration is available. This unit
is capable of treating water at up to 25 gpm (94.6 Lpm)
using larger pumps than are currently fitted and is
leasable from FFT for $1,000 per day for short-term
projects. The cost of building a similar system is
estimated to be about $75,000 to $100,000. At present,
FFT plans to build additional systems as required to fill
project orders. Additional systems may be built in 10 to
12 weeks, including testing. According to FFT, a skid-
mounted system that treats water at flow rates up to 100
gpm (378.5 Lpm) could be built for approximately
$150,000 to $200,000.
The CPFM system may be used to treat water with a
low total suspended solids (TSS) content (surface or
groundwater), as in the demonstration. Alternatively,
the system may be used to treat industrial wastewater in
a treatment train downstream from other technologies
such as soil washing, organic oxidation, or conventional
wastewater treatment using flocculation and solids
removal to lower the TSS content. For each site,
preconditioning chemistry and pH must be optimized
using bench-scale testing.
As discussed in Section 3.4.3, the trailer-mounted
system is easily transported by a 1-ton pickup truck. In
addition, the trailer-mounted unit requires minimal site
preparation. Skid-mounted units will require
significantly more site preparation.
3.10 Limitations of the Technology
In general, the CPFM technology is designed to
remove trace to moderate levels (less than 1,000 ppm) of
nontritium radionuclides and heavy metal pollutants
present in water. The CPFM system removes these
contaminants to ppm or parts per billion (ppb) levels and
is most efficiently employed as a polishing filter in
situations where extremely strict discharge standards
apply. The CPFM system will not remove tritium
(radioactive hydrogen) because tritium is incorporated
with oxygen in water molecules and is therefore not
retained by FF 1000.
High organic compound concentrations, greater than
a few ppm, may interfere with the chemical and physical
reactions occurring between FF 1000 and charged
contaminants. Therefore, water with high organic
compound concentrations is not treated as effectively by
the CPFM technology.
19
-------
Table 3-3. Treatment Standards and Influent Concentrations for CPFM SITE Demonstration
Element
Influent
Concentration9
Colorado Water Quality
Control Commission
(CWQCC)1 Effluent Standard
EPA
MCLC
Radionuclides (pCi/L)
Uranium
Gross Alpha
Americium
Plutonium
Radium-226
68
98.7
0.03
0.03
31
5
7
0.05
0.05
5
10
15
5
Metals (mg/L)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Calcium
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Selenium
Sodium
Strontium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
0.03U
0.04U
0.05U
0.10
0.001
0.005U
0.005
0.003
0.004
162
0.04
0.03U
277
0.003
0.008U
0.02U
55
0.004U
0.056U
359
2.1
0.07U
0.003U
0.003
5.0
0.05
1.0
0.1
0.01
0.05
0.2
0.3
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.2
.
0.05
0.01
...
...
0.1
2.0
5.0
0.05
0.06
1.0
0.1
0.01
0.05
0.05
1.0
1.0
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.32
...
0.05
0.01
.
0.382
0.01
0.024
0.05
Notes:
a Average concentration based on data collected for Runs 1-3 during the demonstration.
b Standards adopted through the Rocky Flats Interagency Agreement, the effluent treatment standard
governing the demonstration
c Maximum contaminant level (MCL)
No standard exists
pCi/L PicoCuries per liter
mg/L Milligrams per liter
U Undetected at this value
20
-------
3.11 Applicable Wastes
According to the developer, potential applications
also include remediation of contaminated liquid wastes
from industrial operations, oil-drilling production water
contaminated with naturally occurring radioactive
materials (NORM), in situ uranium mine effluent water,
and transuranic and low-level radioactive wastes from
nuclear-related facilities. FFT also states that the CPFM
system is designed to treat a wide range of inorganic,
metallic pollutants in water. Several case studies of the
CPFM system in various applications are presented in
Appendix B.
21
-------
Section 4
Economic Analysis
This section presents cost estimates for using the
CPFM technology to treat groundwater. Three cases,
based on treatment time, are presented. These cases are
based on 1-year, 5-year, and 10-year treatment
scenarios. The CPFM technology can be operated at
several different flow rates, but 100 gpm was assumed
for this economic analysis because groundwater is
typically treated in large quantities.
Cost estimates presented in this section are based
primarily on data compiled during the SITE bench-scale
study and demonstration at RFETS. Costs have been
assigned to 12 categories applicable to typical cleanup
activities at Superfund and RCRA sites (Evans 1990).
Costs are presented in September 1993 dollars and are
considered 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 all three cases. The table also presents
total one-time costs and total annual O&M costs; the
total costs for a hypothetical, long-term groundwater
remediation project; and the costs per gallon of water
treated.
4.1 Basis of Economic Analysis
A number of factors affect the estimated costs of
treating groundwater with the CPFM system. Factors
affecting costs generally include flow rate, type and
concentration of contaminants, groundwater chemistry,
physical site conditions, geographical site location,
availability of utilities, and treatment goals. Ultimately,
the characteristics of residual wastes produced by the
CPFM system also affect disposal costs because they
determine whether the residuals require either further
treatment or off-site disposal. FFT claims that the
CPFM technology can be used to treat several types of
liquid wastes, including contaminated groundwater and
industrial wastewater. Groundwater containing
radionuclides was selected for this economic analysis
because it is commonly found at Superfund and RCRA
corrective action sites. Groundwater remediation also
involves most of the cost categories. The following text
presents the assumptions and conditions as they apply to
each case.
For each case, this analysis assumes that the CPFM
system will treat contaminated groundwater on a
continuous flow cycle, 24 hours per day, 7 days per
week. Based on this assumption, the CPFM system will
treat about 52.4 million gallons (198 million liters) of
water during a 1-year period. Over a 5-year period, this
number will rise to 262 million gallons (991 million
liters), and over 10 years, to 524 million gallons (1.98
billion liters). Although 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 to
conduct 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 CPFM system.
The influent has an optimum pH of 8 to 9.
The ambient temperature is between 20ฐ and
35ฐ Celsius.
This analysis assumes that treated water for each case
will be discharged to surface water, and that MCLs
specified in the SDWA are the treatment target levels.
The CPFM system should achieve these levels based on
results of the SITE demonstration.
22
-------
Table 4-1. Costs Associated with the CPFM System6
Cost Categories
Fixed Costs
Site Preparation6
Administrative
Bench-scale Study
Mobilization
Permitting and Regulatory Requirements'3
Capital Equipment6
Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Piping
Treatment Equipment
Storage Tank Purchase
Startup6
Demobilization6
Decon tamina tion/Recons t ruction
Salvage Value
Variable Costs
Labor0
Operations Staff
Automated Monitoring
Consumables and Supplies0
ppc
rrc
Disposable Drums for PPE
Filter Flow 1000
Storage Tank
Miscellaneous
Utilities0
Water
Electricity
Effluent Treatment and Disposal0
Residual and Waste Shipping and Handling0
Solids Disposal
PPE Disposal
Analytical Services0
Maintenance and Modifications0
Total Fixed Costs6
Total Variable Costs0
Total Cost Per Gallon Treated
1
$15,000
5,000
291,500
1,000
(20,000)
28,000
11,900
800
0
24,700
24,000
5,000
$292,500
$94,400
$0.007
Scheduled Treatment Time
year 5 years 10
70,000
3,000
2,000
735,000
750,000
3,500
70,000
(30,000)
5,000
20,000
6,000
700
4,000
500
7,000
300
500
22,5OO
2,200
$15,000
5,000
291,500
1,000
(20,000)
60,000
52,100
3,800
0
123,500
120,000
25,000
$292,500
$384,400
$0.002
70,000
3,000
2,000
735,000
750,000
3,500
70,000
(30,000)
40,000
20,000
30,000
200
20,100
800
1,000
1,300
2,500
1 12,500
1 1,000
$15,000
5,000
291,500
1,000
(20,000)
100,000
102,500
7,600
0
247,000
240,000
75,000
$292,500
$772,100
$0.002
years
70,000
3,000
2,000
735,000
750,000
3,500
70,000
(30,000)
8O,OOO
20,000
60,000
400
40,300
800
1,000
2,600
5,000
225,000
22,000
Notes:
' Costs are based on September 1993 dollars and rounded to the nearest $100
demฐnStratiฐn tests WOuld decrease as the water vฐ'"me and time formulae were optimized.
23
-------
The following assumptions were also made for each case
in this analysis:
The site is located near an urban area within 500
miles (805 kilometers) of Houston, Texas, the
home office of FFT.
Water contamination at the site resulted from
mining or nuclear operations.
Contaminated water is located in an aquifer
within 150 feet (45.7 meters) of the surface.
Access roads exist at the site.
Utility lines, such as electricity and telephone
lines, exist on site.
The water to be treated contains 5,000 ppm
radionuclides.
The treatment goal for the site will be to reduce
the contaminant level to 2,000 ppm.
Water will be treated at a rate of 100 gpm
(378.5 Lpm) and will be stored at the site.
Filter cake will be treated and then disposed of
off site; wash water will be stored and then
disposed of off site.
FFT will sell the CPFM treatment system to the
site owner.
One treated water sample and one untreated
water sample will be collected daily to monitor
system performance.
One part-time operator will be required to
operate the equipment, collect all required
samples, and conduct equipment maintenance
and minor repairs. FFT will train this operator
to operate its equipment as part of the purchase
price.
Labor costs associated with major equipment
repairs or replacement are not included.
4.2 Cost Categories
Cost data associated with the CPFM technology have
been assigned to one of 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) residual 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 the costs that are identical for each case. If
applicable, differences among the costs of the three cases
are then discussed. Some sections end with a summary
of the significant costs within the category. All direct
costs associated with operating the CPFM system are
identified as CPFM 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 administration, bench-
scale testing, mobilization, and miscellaneous utility
connection costs. This analysis assumes a total of about
2,000 square feet (185.8 square meters) will be needed
to accommodate the CPFM unit, support equipment, and
treated and untreated water storage areas. A solid gravel
(or ground) surface is preferred for any remote treatment
project. Pavement is not necessary, but the surface must
be able to support a mobile unit weight of 24,000 to
30,000 pounds (10,839 to 13,605 kilograms) during
operation. This analysis assumes adequate surface areas
exist at the site and will require minimal modifications.
A bench-scale test series will be conducted to
determine the appropriate specifications of the CPFM
system for the site, as well as the amounts of chemicals
and reagents needed for optimal performance. FFT
estimates the cost of this study to be about $3,000 for
tests and a site visit. Administrative costs, such as legal
searches and access rights, are estimated to be $10,000.
Mobilization involves transporting the entire CPFM
treatment system from Houston, Texas, delivering all
rental equipment to the site, and connecting utilities to
the trailer. For this analysis, the site is located within
500 miles (805 kilometers) of Houston, Texas, to
minimize transportation costs. In addition, equipment
vendors are assumed to be situated nearby the site. The
total estimated mobilization cost will be about $2,000.
For each case, total site preparation costs are
estimated to be $15,000.
24
-------
4.2.2 Permitting and Regulatory Requirements
Permitting and regulatory costs will vary, depending
on whether treatment is performed at a Superftmd or a
RCRA corrective action site and on the disposal method
selected for treated effluent and any solid wastes
generated. At Superfund sites, remedial actions must 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 permitting and regulatory costs. For this
analysis, total permitting and regulatory costs are
estimated to be $5,000.
4.2.3 Capital Equipment
Capital equipment costs include installing extraction
wells; purchasing and installing the complete CPFM
treatment system including a portable air compressor;
and purchasing a wastewater holding tank. Extraction
wells were included in the scenario because they are
almost always required in pump and treat groundwater
remediation systems.
Extraction well installation costs associated with a
groundwater remediation project include installing the
well and pump and connecting the pumps, piping, and
valves from the wells to the CPFM system. This
analysis assumes that four 150-foot (45.7 meter)
extraction wells will be required to maintain the 100
gpm (378 Lpm) flow rate. Extraction wells can be
installed at about $150 per foot per well. Total well
construction costs for each case will be about $90,000.
Alternatively, secondary wastewater can be
inexpensively pumped directly from holding tanks.
Pumps, piping, and valve connection costs associated
with a groundwater remediation project will depend on
the following factors: the number of extraction wells
needed, 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 (20.9 meters) from the CPFM
system. Four 25-gpm (94.6 Lpm) pumps will be
required to maintain a 100-gpm (378 Lpm) flow rate, at
a total cost of about $20,000. Piping and valve
connection costs are about $60 per foot ($180 per
meter), including underground installation. Therefore,
total piping costs will be an additional $48,000
The complete CPFM treatment system includes a 30-
foot (9.1 meter) trailer equipped with reaction tanks, a
miniclarifier, a filter press, bag filters, transfer pumps,
two CPFM units, effluent pH adjustment tank, and
electrical and electronic control subsystems. The cost of
building a skid-mounted CPFM that treats flow rates of
up to 100 gpm (378 Lpm) is approximately $150,000.
A high density polyethylene storage tank should be
used to store the treated water for analytical testing prior
to off-site discharge or reuse. It is assumed that a
5,000-gallon (18,925 liter) tank will be purchased for a
cost of $3,500.
4.2.4 Startup
FFT will provide trained personnel to assemble and
begin to operate the CPFM system. FFT personnel are
assumed to be trained in health and safety procedures.
Therefore, training costs are not incurred as a direct
startup cost. If the CPFM system is being purchased
rather than leased, the owner/operator will be trained at
no cost. This analysis assumes that startup will take
about 8 hours to complete and has a total cost of $1,000.
4.2.5 Labor
Labor costs include a part-time technician to operate
and maintain the CPFM system. Once the system is
functioning, it is assumed to operate continuously at the
designed flow rate. One technician will monitor the
equipment, make any required chemical adjustments, and
conduct routine sampling. Under normal operating
conditions, an operator will be required to work only a
few hours per week. The system could be automated for
an approximate $20,000 capital cost. For long-term
projects such as the one analyzed here, it has been
assumed that the system would be automated, and that
staff costs would be approximately $8,000 per year (one
quarter of a $32,000 full time employee).
4.2.6 Consumables and Supplies
Most consumables and supplies used during CPFM
operations, including all chemicals for pre- and post-
treatment, are included in the price of retaining the
CPFM service. The consumables and supplies costs
applicable to this analysis include disposable PPE, drums
for disposing of used PPE, FF 1000, a water storage
tank, and miscellaneous items.
25
-------
Disposable PPE includes Tyvek coveralls, gloves,
booties, and air purifying respirator cartridges. The
treatment system operator will wear PPE when required
by health and safety plans during system operation. PPE
will cost about $25 per day. This analysis assumes the
PPE will be needed daily for the duration of the project.
Total annual PPE costs are estimated to be about $600.
Three 55-gallon (208 liter), open-head, plastic-lined
drums are estimated to be needed for disposing of used
disposable health and safety and sampling gear, as well
as for storing nonhazardous wastes for disposal. Total
disposal drum costs are estimated to be about $100 per
year.
FF 1000 is necessary for the operation of the CPFM
system. FFT estimates that approximately 23 cubic feet
(0.65 cubic meters) of FF 1000 at $175 per cubic foot
are needed to operate the 100 gpm (378 Lpm) system for
1 year, for a total cost of $4,000 per year.
One 1,000-gallon (3,785 liter) polyethylene water
storage tank, costing $800, will be used for equipment
washdown and decontamination rinse waters.
Miscellaneous costs of $1,000 were included for the
purchase of small parts and other supplies.
4.2.7 Utilities
Utilities used by the CPFM system include water,
electricity, and compressed air.
The CPFM treatability system requires about 250
gallons (946 liters) of potable water per week. This
water will be used for operation of the CPFM system
and decontamination of operators. This analysis
estimates water to cost $0.02 per gallon. Total water
costs will be about $5 per week, for a total of
approximately $300 per year. This cost can vary by as
much as 100 percent depending on the geographic
location of the site, availability of water, and distance to
the nearest water main. When the project is completed,
the remaining wash water will be stored in a tank prior
to off-site disposal.
Electricity to operate the process equipment, field
laboratory equipment, and air compressor is assumed to
be available at the site. Electricity is assumed to cost
about $500 per year. This analysis assumes that
electricity costs about $0.07 per kilowatt-hour (kWh).
Electricity costs can vary by as much as 50 percent
depending on the geographical location and local utility
rates. No estimate of kWh per 1,000 gallons (3,785
liters) of water treated has been calculated.
4.2.8 Effluent Treatment and Disposal
The analysis assumes that the effluent stream will
have a pH from 7 to 8.3, and will not contain regulated
pollutants exceeding EPA drinking water standards;
hence, no further treatment should be needed. Final pH
adjustment of effluent, if required, is included in
miscellaneous consumables costs. Local regulations may
require discharge to a publicly owned treatment works
(POTW), which may result in additional charges to the
CPFM system operator. For this analysis, effluent
treatment and disposal costs are estimated at $0 per year.
4.2.9 Residual Waste Shipping and Handling
This analysis assumes that approximately 23 cubic
feet (0.65 cubic meters) per year of dewatered, spent FF
1000 would be generated. In addition, 350 cubic feet
(9.9 cubic meters) per year of filter cake would be
generated from the filter press. Disposal of the FF 1000
typically involves mixing dewatered FF 1000 and filter
press filter cake solids, followed by stabilization with a
powdered commercial chemical (ChemSorb-500) and
storing the stabilized material in 55-gallon (208 liter)
drums. During the SITE demonstration, these drums
were stored at an EPA- and DOE-approved storage
facility. Assuming disposal costs similar to those
observed at RFETS, total disposal costs for 47 drums of
stabilized filter cake are estimated to be about $22,500
per year.
Drummed PPE will be screened for radioactivity and
disposed of in accordance with state and federal
requirements. This analysis assumes that about three
drums per year must be disposed of. Based on
observations at RFETS, this analysis estimates a cost of
about $2,200 for this disposal. For remediation
projects, there would be no waste water drummed
because the wastewater would be treated to remove the
contaminants and discharged to surface water.
Decontamination water generated during system
operation is returned to the CPFM system for treatment.
4.2.10 Analytical Services
Analytical costs associated with a groundwater
remediation project include laboratory analyses, data
reduction and tabulation, QA/QC, and reporting. For
each case, this analysis assumes that one sample of
untreated water and one sample of treated water will be
26
-------
analyzed for gross alpha radioactivity and metal
concentrations each week, 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 are 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
Annual repair and maintenance costs apply to all
equipment involved in every aspect of groundwater
remediation with the CPFM system. No modification
costs are assumed to be incurred. Based on information
from FFT and its fabrication subcontractor, total annual
maintenance costs are assumed to be about $5,000 a year
for the first 5 years, and $10,000 a year for every year
after that.
4.2.12 Demobilization
Site demobilization costs include berm cleaning and
equipment decontamination, plus site restoration and
checkout. Site restoration activities include regrading or
filling excavation areas, and demolition and disposal of
all fencing. Total demobilization costs are estimated to
be about $10,000.
The CPFM system has a life span of approximately
15 years. Therefore, this analysis also assumes that
there will be a salvage value for the equipment of
approximately 20 percent of the original price, or
$30,000.
27
-------
Section 5
Treatment Effectiveness
In January 1991, DOE, CDH, now CDPHE, and
EPA signed an interagency agreement (IAG) to govern
environmental restoration activities at RFETS. Under
the terms of the IAG, DOE has agreed to conduct a
number of treatability studies at RFETS. Once DOE
and the EPA agreed that RFETS would be an
appropriate site for technology demonstrations, a
memorandum of understanding between DOE and EPA
Headquarters was signed. After signing the
memorandum of understanding, a cooperative effort
involving DOE, EPA, CDPHE, and FFT allowed the
CPFM technology to be demonstrated at RFETS. This
section briefly describes the demonstration activities and
results.
5.1 Background
RFETS is located in northern Jefferson County,
Colorado, 'approximately 16 miles (25.7 kilometers)
northwest of Denver. RFETS began operations in 1952,
and was a key facility in the federal government's
nationwide nuclear weapons research, development, and
production program. The mission of the plant has now
changed from production to decontamination and
decommissioning of facilities, environmental restoration,
waste management, and to allow private industry to use
portions of the site.
In the past, waste generated by RFETS included
hazardous, radioactive, and mixed hazardous and
radioactive wastes. Like many industries at that time,
RFETS used accepted methods of disposal for these
wastes, such as SEPs, that do not meet today's disposal
standards.
Contaminated liquids stored in SEPs at RFETS have
leaked to groundwater beneath the ponds. This
groundwater is collected by a intercepter trench system
downgradient of the SEPs and pumped from the ITPH to
three open-top 500,000-gallon (1,892,500 liter) tanks.
Water from these tanks was used as the source of
contaminated water for the demonstration. Treated
effluent from the demonstration was routed back to a
second 500,000-gallon (1,892,500 liter) tank. The
contaminated groundwater contained low levels of
radioactivity with a concentration of about 100 pCi/L of
gross alpha and 100 /*g/L of uranium.
5.2 Review of SITE Demonstration
The SITE demonstration was divided into three
phases: (1) site preparation; (2) technology
demonstration; and (3) site demobilization. These
activities are reviewed in the following paragraphs,
including variations from the work plan, and the CPFM
system performance during the technology demonstration
phase is assessed.
5.2.7 Site Preparation
A total of approximately 2,000 square feet (185.8
square meters) of relatively flat ground was used for the
CPFM trailer unit and support facilities, such as
generators, air compressors, clean water storage tank,
office and field laboratory trailer, and parking area. Site
preparation required 1 day to complete. Most of the
equipment required to operate the CPFM system is
included as part of the trailer-mounted unit. Site
preparation was minimal because generators and portable
compressors were used. Toilet facilities were available
near the demonstration area. Drinking water was
transported to the site in portable coolers. Telephone
service was provided by cellular phone. Support items
required for the demonstration included the following:
One 1,000-gallon (3,785 liter) closed-top
polyethylene tank used to contain potable water
28
-------
One 50-gallon (189.2 liter) tank containing
concentrated sulfuric acid used to acidify system
effluent
Two gas-powered, portable generators used to
power the CPFM system and office trailer
One gas-powered, portable air compressor used
to power compressed air pumps on the CPFM
system trailer
A forklift with operator for moving drummed
wastes
Sampling equipment for collecting aqueous
media and solids samples
Analytical equipment for measuring field
parameters at the demonstration site
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, and safety
glasses
A vehicle for transporting personnel and
equipment to the site
5.2.2 Technology Demonstration
Approximately 10,000 gallons (37,850 liters) of
contaminated groundwater were treated by the CPFM
system over a 3-week period. Prior to the tests, a half-
day system check using clean water was conducted to
check the CPFM system for leaks.
The experiments were divided into three tests: test
one (runs 1 through 3) was designed to evaluate the
technology at constant operating conditions; test two (run
4) evaluated the system using pretreatment of influent
with sodium sulfide; test three (run 5) was designed to
determine the saturation rate of the filter media
(breakthrough). Only one operating parameter,
pretreatment condition, and one equipment set-up
parameter, bed configuration, were varied during the
demonstration. Other process parameters, such as
operating pressure and flow rate, were held constant.
Runs 1 through 3 were conducted at a flow rate of
5 gpm (18.9 Lpm), with no pretreatment, to assess the
CPFM system's ability to consistently produce treated
water meeting effluent goals. Run 4 was conducted at
the same operating conditions but using sodium sulfide
pretreatment. This run provided data indicating the
effect of pretreatment on effluent quality. The CPFM
system was operated for 4 hours during each of the first
four runs. In addition, to induce high removal
efficiencies within the system, all four runs were
conducted using two colloid filter units operated in series
with three filter packs per colloid unit. The filter packs
were changed for each run. Run 5 evaluated the time
required to reach breakthrough in the filter packs.
Breakthrough was defined as the point at which effluent
goals for radionuclides were no longer achieved. Run 5
was conducted using two parallel colloid filter units with
one filter pack in each and a flow rate of 2.5 gpm (9.5
liters) per colloid filter unit. This run was conducted for
15 hours.
During the demonstration, samples were collected of
untreated influent, pretreated water after passing through
the miniclarifier and bag filters, and treated effluent that
had passed through the filter packs. Samples were
analyzed to determine the technology's effectiveness.
Pretreatment adjustment of the pH was not required at
RFETS because the influent water was within the
optimum pH range (8 to 9) for the technology. The pH
of the effluent water was monitored in the effluent pH
adjustment tank and treated to reduce the pH to its
original level.
5.2.3 Operational and Sampling Problems
and Variations from the Work Plan
The SITE team, consisting of EPA's contractors and
EG&G, DOE's operating contractor at RFETS,
experienced a few operational and sampling problems
during the demonstration. Some of these problems
resulted in changes in the demonstration schedule, while
others required making decisions in the field to solve the
problem. Problems encountered during the
demonstration and their solutions are described below.
The five runs of the demonstration were
scheduled to be completed in 1 week. Due to
problems with pump sizing, a second, larger,
pump had to be ordered after the leak test at the
end of the first week of the demonstration. The
pump did not arrive until Monday of the next
week. Therefore, only four tests were
conducted during the second week of the
demonstration; the last test, the breakthrough
run, was conducted during the third week of the
demonstration. Decontamination was completed
in the remaining days of the third week.
Therefore, the demonstration was completed in
the allotted 3 weeks.
29
-------
The work plan stated that power to operate the
CPFM system and support facilities during the
demonstration were to be provided by EG&G.
However, due to power grid limitations at
RFETS, power for the demonstra-tion was
provided by portable generators. This change
did not affect CPFM system performance.
During the field audit, the method proposed for
compositing the spent filter cake was discussed
and revised. The revised sampling plan called
for each pack to be opened and five scoops, one
from each quadrant and the center, removed.
After all six packs had been sampled using this
procedure, the resulting solid was homogenized
in a stainless-steel bowl and samples collected
for the required parameters.
At the request of DOE, to minimize volume the
spent filter cake was not stabilized with
ChemSorb 500 as was called for in the work
plan. After sampling, the spent filter cake and
the filter packs were deposited in a lined 55-
gallon drum. Therefore, no samples of
stabilized filter cake were collected.
During the demonstration, the bag filter was
replaced for each run. However, the filters did
not contain enough material to sample. In
addition, the miniclarifier sludge was sampled
only at the end of the demonstration. This
sludge was not stabilized before sampling.
During run 5 it was discovered that sample port
L4 was actually collecting a combination of the
flow through both packs, rather than through
only a single pack. When this was noticed at
time T8 (720 minutes into the run) an additional
sample was collected of water that passed
through only the single filter pack. This sample
was called L4a.
Duplicate sampling planned for run 4 was not
conducted.
5.2.4 Site Demobilization
Site demobilization activities began after the
demonstration was completed. Demobilization activities
included draining the 1,000-gallon (3,785 liter) potable
water tank and disconnecting the portable generators and
compressor.
Decontamination was necessary for the trailer-
mounted CPFM system. The CPFM system was
decontaminated with high-pressure steam at the RFETS
decontamination pad. The RFETS decontamination pad
is equipped with a system to treat decontamination
water. RFETS also disposed of all PPE that had been
previously screened for contamination. Spent filter cake
is being stored at RFETS pending a decision on its final
disposal off site.
5.3 Demonstration Methodology
The technology demonstration had one primary
objective: to assess the CPFM system's ability to
remove uranium and gross alpha contamination to levels
below CWQCC standards. Secondary objectives for the
technology demonstration were as follows:
Document the operating conditions and identify
operational needs, such as utility and labor
requirements, for the treatment system
Estimate costs associated with operation of the
CPFM system
Estimate costs associated with operation of the
CPFM system.
Assess the technology's ability to remove other
radionuclides (plutonium, americium, and
radium)
Evaluate the disposal options for prefiltered
solids (miniclarifier and bag filter solids) and
filter cake from the colloid filter unit
Secondary objectives provide information that is useful,
but not critical, to the evaluation of the system.
The data required to achieve the primary objectives
are called the critical parameters. For this project, the
critical parameters are uranium and gross alpha
concentrations in water treated by the CPFM system.
The data required to achieve the secondary objectives
are called the noncritical parameters. The noncritical
parameters for this project are:
Concentrations and measurements in the
influent, intermediate, and effluent of:
30
-------
plutonium, americium, and radium
anions/cations
metals analyzed by inductively coupled
plasma (ICP)
total suspended and total dissolved solids
(TSS and IDS)
pH, temperature, and electrical
conductivity
total organic carbon (TOC)
Individual concentrations in the prefiltered solids
and filter care for:
uranium and gross alpha
plutonium, americium, and radium
ICP metals
Individual measurements of the prefiltered solids
and filter cake prior to stabilization for:
total mass
moisture content
bulk density
Measurement of free liquids in prefiltered solids
and filter cake solids (as measured by the paint
filter liquids test PFLT).
Flow rate and pumping periods of the:
influent
sulfuric acid stream
sodium sulfide stream
Pressure loss across the colloid filter unit as a
function of operating time (as measured by the
differential pressure across each filter bed)
Electricity usage
5.3.1 Testing Approach
To evaluate the critical parameters in each of the first
four runs, the objective of sampling was to determine the
concentrations of uranium and gross alpha at three
locations (sample ports) in the system: influent (LI),
intermediate precolloid filter units (L2), and effluent
(L3) (Figure 5-1). The ability to assess the relative
difference at each port depends on the precision of
measuring concentrations at each location. The precision
of these measurements depends on the magnitude of the
errors (variability) introduced by system fluctuations and
sampling and analytical variations. The goal of the
sampling scheme for this type of system is to minimize
these errors so that the difference in the concentrations
of uranium and gross alpha at each port reflects system
performance only.
However, it is rarely possible, and typically cost
prohibitive, to eliminate system variability and sampling
error completely. Some modifications of sampling
procedures and design can reduce the inherent error and
allow for the statistical quantification of the remaining
data variation. For example, collection of composite
samples over the duration of a run instead of a point
(grab) sample from a portion of the system that is
potentially subject to fluctuations may reduce variability
in the uranium and gross alpha concentrations due to
inherent system changes and point sampling. For this
reason, grab samples taken in the middle of each run
were compared with composite samples consisting of
several small samples collected throughout the run.
Comparison of data for grab samples to data for
associated composite samples allowed for an evaluation
of the potential variation introduced by a limited "snap
shot" type of sampling. This information was used in
determining whether grab sampling will be adequate for
sampling a full-scale CPFM system in the future. In
addition, analytical precision of radionuclide analytical
procedures has historically been a problem (especially at
low concentrations). Comparison of sample results with
laboratory replicate results was used to identify the
variability associated with the analytical procedures. A
sampling scheme for the critical parameters uranium and
gross alpha was designed to reduce introduction of
sampling error and to quantitatively evaluate variation
due to each of the sources discussed in this section. The
unbalanced hierarchical design used during the
demonstration is shown in Figure 5-2.
Analytical and measurement data were also collected
during the demonstration to address the secondary
objectives of the project. These data were not collected
using hierarchical sampling schemes. Measurement
locations are also shown on Figure 5-1.
5.3.2 Sampling Analysis and Measurement
Procedures
Water samples for the critical parameters were
collected from the CPFM treatment system at the
locations shown in Figure 5-1 using the sampling
protocol described in the previous section. Water
samples were also collected for the noncritical chemical
parameters including metals, plutonium, americium, and
31
-------
radium concentrations. In addition, solid samples of the
spent filter cake removed from the filter packs were
collected. Samples for TCLP analysis were also
collected from the spent filter cake. These samples were
analyzed for the critical and noncritical parameters using
the methods listed in Table 5-1.
In addition to sampling and analysis for chemical
parameters, the operating conditions of the CPFM
system were evaluated using the measurement data
collected at several locations shown in Figure 5-1.
For runs 1 through 4 electrical conductivity,
temperature, and pH were measured at measurement
locations Ml (influent), M4 (intermediate), and M9
(effluent). For run 5 these parameters were measured at
measurement locations Ml, M4, Ml8 (effluent from
filter pack 1) and M19 (effluent from filter pack 2).
Flow rate was measured at locations Ml, M4 and M9
for runs 1 through 4 and at locations Ml, M4, Ml8, and
M19 for run 5. The differential pressure across the
colloid filter packs was measured at locations M5 (first
set of filter packs) and M6 (second set of filter packs)
for runs 1 through 4 and at locations M7 (first filter
pack) and M8 (second filter pack) for run 5. Mass of
solid materials was measured at locations M10 through
M15 (the individual filter packs), for runs 1 through 4
and at M16 (filter pack 1) and M17 (filter pack 2) for
run 5. Power consumption was measured by the amount
of gasoline used by the portable generators. The amount
of sodium sulfide used during run 4 was measured at
location M26 and the amount of sulfuric acid added
during runs 1 through 5 was measured at M21.
5.4 Review of Treatment Results
This section summarizes the results of both critical
and noncritical parameters for the CPFM system, and
evaluates the technology's effectiveness in treating
groundwater containing uranium and gross alpha
contamination.
5.4.1 Summary of Results for Critical
Parameters
Analytical results for uranium and gross alpha from
runs 1 through 4 are presented in Table 5-2. Analytical
results for run 5 are presented in Table 5-3. Runs 1
through 3 were designed to collect sufficient data to
conduct a statistical evaluation of CPFM system
capabilities. Therefore, composite, grab, and replicate
samples were collected and analyzed. Run 4 was
conducted to evaluate the effect of chemical pretreatment
on system efficiency.
Assessment of data quality for the critical parameters
uranium and gross alpha included evaluation of
laboratory method blanks, matrix spike and matrix spike
duplicate recoveries, and analytical/field duplicates. No
laboratory contamination was indicated by method blank
data. Uranium matrix spike recoveries were all within
the acceptable range of 80 to 120 percent. However,
three out of 20 matrix spike recoveries for gross alpha
were outside of these control limits. Duplicate uranium
analyses were all well within ฑ 20 percent and yield a
correlation coefficient (r2) value from linear regression
of 0.99, indicating that reproducibility of uranium
analyses is excellent. However, 12 out of 20 duplicate
gross alpha analyses exceeded ฑ 20 percent and yield an
r2 value from linear regression of 0.15, indicating poor
reproducibility of gross alpha data. Therefore, only
uranium analyses are considered reliable for assessing
the performance of the CPFM system; gross alpha data
should be considered with reasonable caution.
Figures 5-3 and 5-4 show uranium and gross alpha
concentrations for influent, intermediate, and effluent in
runs 1 through 4. Figures 5-5 and 5-6 show gross alpha
and uranium concentrations for effluent for the
breakthrough assessment in run 5. (Where replicate
composites exist, an average value was used.) Where
possible, only composite data were used to construct
these figures.
Composite gross alpha and uranium concentrations
for influent for runs 1 through 4 varied from 65 to 110
pCi/L for gross alpha and 98 to 103 jig/L for uranium.
Analytical results for composite samples of intermediate
waters from these three runs show a range of 36 to 84
pCi/L for gross alpha and a range of 60 to 94 /xg/L for
uranium. Analytical results for composite effluent water
from runs 1 through 4 show gross alpha values that
range from a low of 3.7 pCi/L for run 4 to a high of 50
pCi/L for run 2. Similarly, analytical results for
uranium ranged from a low of 5.1 /xg/L for run 4 to a
high of 38 jug/L for run 2.
Removal efficiencies for runs 1 through 4 were
calculated using composite data and are shown in Table
5-4. (Where replicate composites exit, an average value
was used.) Overall removal efficiencies for uranium
during runs 1 through 3 ranged from a low of 58.4
percent to a high of 90.6 percent. Overall removal
efficiencies for gross alpha for runs 1 through 3 ranged
32
-------
Table 5-1. Summary of Analytical Methods for the CPFM SITE Demonstration
Parameter
Sample Type
Total Uranium Solid and Liquid
Method Number
Method Title
Method Type
Phosphorimetryh/
PACE SOP1
Gross alpha Solid and Liquid 900.0d/PACE SOP1
Radium 226 Solid and Liquid 903.1d/PACE SOP'
Plutonium 239, Solid and Liquid
240
Americium 241 Solid and Liquid
Fluoride Liquid
Chloride
Phosphate
Alkalinity
Ammonia
ICP Metals
Mercury
Strontium
Liquid
Nitrite/nitrate Liquid
Sulfate Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
EPA-600/7-79-
081 a/HEA-001 8-01 b
EPA-60G/7-79-
081 a/HEA-001 8-01 b
300.0'
300.0'
353.1'
300.0'
365.2'
310.1'
350.3'
Solid and Liquid 3050C/3010C/6010C
Solid and Liquid 7471 and 7470AC
Direct detection of trace levels of
uranium by laser-induced kinetic
phosphorimetry
Gross alpha
Alpha emitting radium isotopes in
drinking water
Plutonium 239, 240
Americium 241
Ion chromatography
determination: chloride, fluoride,
nitrate, nitrite, and sulfate
Ion chromatography
determination: chloride, fluoride,
nitrate, nitrite, and sulfate
Nitrogen, nitrite-nitrate
Ion chromatograph
determination: chloride, fluoride,
nitrate, nitrite, and sulfate
Phosphorous (all forms)
Alkalinity as carbonate
Ammonia
Acid digestion of aqueous
samples and extracts for total
metals analysis by Inductively
Coupled Plasma (ICP)
spectroscopy
Acid digestion of solid and
aqueous samples and Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) leachates for
mercury by Cold Vapor Atomic
Absorption
Kinetic
phosphorimetry
Alpha and beta gas
flow proportional
counter
Alpha scintillation
counter
Ion exchange, alpha
spectrometry
Ion exchange, alpha
spectrometry
Ion chromatography
Ion chromatography
Colorimetric
determination
Ion chromatography
Colorimetric
determination
Titration
Ion selective
electrode
Digestion/ICP
Digestion/Cold Vapor
AA
Solid and Liquid 3050C/301 0C/7780C
Acid digestion of solid and
aqueous samples and TCLP
leachates for strontium by
flame atomic absorption (AA)
Digestion/Flame AA
33
-------
Table 5-1. Summary of Analytical Methods for the CPFM SITE Demonstration (Continued)
Parameter
TCLP
pH
Flow rate
Pressure
Temperature
Electrical
conductivity
Filter cake mass
Free liquids
Moisture
content
Bulk density
Total suspended
solids
Total organic
carbon
Total dissolved
solids
Sample Type
Solid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Solid
Semisolid
Solid/semisolid
Solid/semisolid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Method Number
131 1C
150.1'
NA
IMA
25509
25 109
NA
9095C
D22166
D2937-836
160.2f
9060C
160. 1f
Method Title
TCLP
pH
NA
NA
Temperature
Conductivity
Gravimetric
Paint Filter Liquids Test (PFLT)
Moisture content
Bulk density
Residue, nonfilterable
Total Organic Carbon
Residue, filterable
Method Type
Extraction procedure
Electrochemical
Rotameter
Pressure gauge
Thermocouple
Specific conductance
Gravimetric
Filtration/volumetric
Gravimetric
Gravimetric and
volumetric
Gravimetric
Gravimetric
Gravimetric
Notes:
NA
Acid Dissolution Method for Analysis of Plutonium in Soils. U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada. EPA-600/7-79-081. 1979.
Maximum Sensitivity Procedures for Isolation of Plutonium and Americium in Composited Water Samples,
Rocky Flats Plant Health and Safety Laboratories, Golden, Colorado. 1990.
Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Volumes IA-IC: Laboratory Manual, Physical/Chemical Methods;
and Volume II: Field Manual, Physical/Chemical Methods. SW-846, Third Edition. Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986.
Prescribed Procedures for Measurement of Radioactivity in Drinking Water. Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-600/4-80-032. 1980.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1980, 1983.
Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. EPA-600/4-79-020, Revised March 1983,
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1983, and subsequent EPA-600/4 Technical Additions.
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th Edition. APHA, AWWA, and WEF,
1992.
Direct Detection of Trace Levels of Uranium by Laser-Induced Kinetic Phosphorimetry, Analytical Chemistry,
Volume 64, No. 13, pp. 1413-1418. July 1, 1992.
See Appendix A for the appropriate PACE, Inc. laboratory standard operating procedure (SOP).
Not applicable
34
-------
MIXING
SECTION
MINICLARIFIER
pH ADJUSTMENT OR
CHEMICAL PRETREATMENT
BAG
FILTER
COLLOID
FILTER
UNITS
INFLUENT
MIXING TANK
i;
_ซ
14)
_>
!
IS
1
I
\
IT
r"n
II
t
inn
_
/
19) PARALLEL (RUN 6)
3)(M9J SERIES (RUNS 1-4)
EFFLUENT
DH ADJUSTMENT
-SULFURIC
AGIO ADDITION
TO DISCHARGE
NOTE: COLLOID FILTER UNITS OPERATED
FOR RUNS 1 THROUGH 4 IN SERIES
WITH THREE PACKS PER UNIT.
COLLOID FILTER UNITS OPERATED IN
PARALLEL FOR RUN 5 WITH ONE
PACK PER UNIT.
LEGEND
txj VALVE
1
MIXER
FLOW DIRECTION
SAMPLE
PORT
PUMP
Figure 5-1. CPFM Treatment System Sampling Locations
-------
Table 5-2. Analytical Results for Uranium and Gross Alpha for Runs 1 through 4 of the CPFM SITE Demonstration
Influent
Parameter Run
Number
Uranium (/vg/L)
Gross Alpha (pCi/L)
Uranium (/yg/L)
2
Gross Alpha (pCi/L)
Uranium (//g/L)
3
Gross Alpha (pCi/L)
Uranium (jt/g/L)
Gross Alpha (pCi/L)
Composite/
Duplicate
102/104
98/99
89/94
88/62
102
110
98
65
Grab/
Duplicate
102
94
102
110
96/96
100/1 10
104
100
Intermediate
Composite/
Duplicate
60/60
40/NA
92
84
94
36
64
71
Grab/
Duplicate
62
77
98/94
68/110
94/92
110/57
55
50
Effluent
Composite/
Duplicate
9.5/9.6
13/NA
38/38
53/47
23/25
27/NA
5.1
3.7
Grab/
Duplicate
3.4
9.4
43
24
7.9/8.3
0/25
19
11
VsVVUVsV^
Standards
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Notes:
3 Colorado Water Quality Control Commmission
b CWQCC standard for uranium converted from pCi/L to /vg/L using the conversion factor of 0.68 pCi//yg.
NA Not analyzed
/vg/L Micrograms per liter
pCi/L PicoCuries per liter
-------
Table 5-3. Analytical Results for Uranium and Gross Alpha for Run 5 of the CPFM SITE Demonstration
u>
Influent
Sample Type/ Grab/ Composite/
Location Duplicate Grab Duplicate Grab
Time from start of run 120 780 120-900 120
(minutes)
Uranium (fjg/L) 104/102 100 102/102 87
Gross Alpha (pCi/L) 87/77 150 75/76 46
Intermediate
Grab/ Composite/
Duplicate Duplicate
780 120-900
106/102 96/98
86/110 68/110
Effluent
Sample Type/Location L4 L5 L4 L5 L4/Dup L5 L4 L5/Dup
Time (minutes) 120 240 360 480
Uranium (/vg/L) 70 75 83 85 94/87 89 92 94
Gross Alpha (pCi/L) 52 79 91 91 87/96 60 - 91
L4/Dup L5 L4 L5/Dup
540 600
79/81 94 81 98/94
110/40 93 85 84/72
Effluent
Sample Type/Location L4/Dup L5 L4 L4a L5/Dup L4/Dup L4a L5/Dup L4
Time (minutes) 660 720 780
Uranium (/yg/L) 81/94 98/94 77 77 83/77 85 77 85/85 92
Gross Alpha (pCi/L) 110/86 74 58 81 75/76 81 61 61/55 81
L4a L5 L4 L4a L5
840 900
70 96 94 83 94
45 100 64 47 110
Notes:
/yg/L Micrograms per liter
pCi/L PicoCuries per liter
-------
OO
DATA
VARIATION
SOURCE
LEVEL
PROCESS
CONDITION
RUN
PORT
SAMPLING
{GRAB (G)
COMPOSITE (C)}
ANALYTICAL
REPLICATES
NORMAL
L1 L2 L3 L1
L2 L3 L1
L2 L3 L1
PRETREATMENT
L2 L3
Figure 5-2. Sampling Design for Critical Parameters for Runs 1 through 4
-------
120
100
80
60
40
20
BSRUN 1
ฃ3RUN 2
E]RUN 3
QRUN 4
INFLUENT
(L1)
INTERMEDIATE
(L2)
EFFLUENT
(L3)
Figure 5-3. Gross Alpha Concentrations for Runs 1 through 4
39
-------
120
100
80
60
40
20
J RUN 1
JRUN 2
IRUN 3
IRUN 4
INFLUENT
(LI)
INTERMEDIATE
(L2)
EFFLUENT
(L3)
Figure 5-4. Uranium Concentrations for Runs 1 through 4
40
-------
GROSS ALPHA
CONCENTRATION
(pciA)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
MEAN INFUENT
MEAN INTERMEDIATE (L2)
240
360
460
540 600
TIME (MINUTES)
660
720
780
MEAN
EFFLUENT
840
REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY
(*)
0
20
40
60
80
100
900
NOTE: SOLID SQUARES CORRESPOND TO CONCENTRATIONS AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
Figure 5-5. Gross Alpha Concentrations for Run 5 Effluent
-------
to
URANIUM REMOVAL
CONCENTRATION EFFICIENCY
140 -
120 -
100
80
60
40
20
0
MEAN INFUENT MEAN |NTERMED|ATE (L2)
/ /
- _ --ป- ~* *^^^ -""^*
V^* "" ~ /
/
MEAN
EFFLUENT
i i i i i i i i - f 1 1
120 240 360 480 540 600 660 720 780 840 900
0
20
-40
-60
-80
100
TIME (MINUTES)
NOTE: SOLID SQUARES CORRESPOND TO CONCENTRATIONS AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
Figure 5-6. Uranium Concentrations for Run 5 Effluent
-------
Table 5-4. Removal Efficiency Results for Runs 1 Through 4 for the CPFM SITE Demonstration
Run
Parameter Number Influent
Uranium (jJQ/L) 103
Gross Alpha 1 98.5
(pCi/L)
Uranium (/yg/L) 91 .5
Gross Alpha 2 75
(pCi/L)
Uranium (/yg/L) 102
Gross Alpha 3 1 1 Q
(pCi/L)
Uranium (yug/L) 98
Gross Alpha 4 65
(pCi/L)
Notes:
a Composite values from Table 5-2
used for all; average taken
where applicable
b Miniclarifier and bag
filter removal efficiency
c Colloid filter unit
removal efficiency =
d Overall removal efficiency
Intermediate
60
40
92
84
94
36
64
71
Miniclarifier and Bag
Filter Removal Efficiency
Effluent (percent)15
9.6
13
38
50
24
27
5.1
3.7
[Influent] - [Intermediate! x
[Influent]
[Intermediate] - [Effluent! x
[Intermediate]
[Influent]
- [Effluent] x 100
41.7
59.4
-0.5
-12.0
7.8
72.5
34.7
-9.2
100
100
Colloid Filter Unit
Removal Efficiency
(percent)0
84.0
67.5
58.6
40.5
74.5
25.0
92
94.8
Overall Removal
Efficiency CWQCC
(percent)11 Standards6
90.6 7
86.8 7
58.4 7
33.3 7
76.5 7
75.5 7
94.8 7
94.3 7
[Influent]
Where: [ ] equals the concentration of the individual parameters
CWQCC = Colorado Water Quality Control Commission
-------
between 33.3 and 86.8 percent. As stated above, only
uranium analyses are considered reliable for assessing
the performance of the CPFM system; gross alpha data
should be considered with caution. Overall removal
efficiencies for run 4 were slightly better than the best of
the initial three runs with 94.8 percent removal for
uranium and 94.3 percent removal for gross alpha. In
addition, only in run 4 were the CWQCC standards met
for composite samples. However, this result is based on
a single composite rather than a single plus duplicate
composite sample.
Although removal is largely attributable to the colloid
filter pack, significant removal of uranium occurred in
runs 1 and 4 before influent water reached to the colloid
filter unit (Table 5-4). Significant precolloid filter
removal of gross alpha is also indicated for runs 1 and
3. However, bag filters present between influent and
effluent sampling posts did not collect enough material
for sampling during any of the runs. The three runs
conducted to evaluate the consistency of the CPFM
system's ability to remove radionuclide and heavy metal
contaminants from water indicate that removal
efficiencies are somewhat variable at constant operating
conditions. This variability could not be directly related
to the operational parameters and so remains unexplained
by the demonstration. In addition, a comparison of
composite and grab sample analytical results indicates
that the composite samples provide a more accurate
evaluation of the CPFM system's performance.
The results from run 5 presented in Table 5-3 and
shown in Figures 5-5 and 5-6 indicate minimal removal
of uranium and gross alpha. This data can be
interpreted as showing that breakthrough using a single
colloid filter unit occurred prior to the first sampling
time at 120 minutes or that the single pack configuration
was not capable of removing significant amounts of
contamination. Neither result was expected based on the
information initially provided by FFT. On average, only
a slight reduction in the influent uranium and gross alpha
concentrations was observed in run 5. In addition, data
for this run are erratic, indicating that performance of
the system during discrete time intervals may be
unpredictable. In addition, the results indicate that
single pack removal efficiencies are considerably less
than the series of six packs used in runs 1 through 4.
Reduction in removal efficiencies may be due to a
variety of factors such as channeling through a single
pack, or insufficient residence time within the pack.
However, this demonstration was not designed to
evaluate such factors.
5.4.2 Summary of Results for Noncritical Parameters
As discussed in previous sections, several noncritical
parameters were evaluated during and after the
demonstration. The results of these evaluations are
discussed below in the order they were presented in
Section 5.3.
Results from analysis of composite samples for
plutonium, americium, radium, anions, cations, metals,
TSS, TDS, pH, temperature, TOC, and electrical
conductivity are presented in Tables 5-5 through 5-9.
These results show that the radionuclides plutonium,
radium, and americium were present at concentrations at
or below the detection limit in the influent. Therefore,
the ability of the CPFM system to remove them could
not be evaluated. Although it was known that these
elements were present in the influent at levels near the
detection limit of 0.01 pCi/L, assessment of their
removal by the CPFM system was retained as a
secondary objective of the demonstration because the
discharge limit for these elements is 0.05 pCi/L. In
addition, several heavy metals that may be removed by
the CPFM system were present only at or below the
detection limit. Therefore, the ability of the CPFM
system to remove them from water could not be
evaluated. Most other metals and anions in water
showed slight decreases in concentration following
treatment by the CPFM system. Aluminum, barium,
and carbonate (measured as alkalinity) showed increased
concentrations in the effluent relative to the influent.
However, these are three of the major components of FF
1000 and so may be expected in the effluent.
The TDS content remained approximately constant
from influent to effluent. However, TSS content
increased from approximately 10 mg/L in influent to
approximately 100 mg/L for effluent. The reason for
this increase was not determined. The pH also increased
from about 8 in the influent to approximately 11 in the
effluent (prior to treatment before discharge). The
temperature of water does not appear to systematically
increase or decrease from influent to intermediate to
effluent. TOC decreased from influent to intermediate
to effluent for all runs except run 1. Electrical
conductivity was measured by a hand-held probe in the
field. However, readings were found to be erratic and
did not correlate with the TDS measurements received
from laboratory analysis. The electrical conductivity
readings are presented in Tables 5-10 through 5-14.
44
-------
Table 5-5. Analytical Results for Noncritical Parameters from Run 1 of the CPFM SITE Demonstration
Parameter3
Aluminum (/yg/L)
Barium (/vg/L)
Boron (//g/L)
Calcium (mg/L)
Chromium (/vg/L)
Copper (/yg/L)
Iron (//g/L)
Magnesium (mg/L)
Manganese (//g/L)
Potassium (mg/L)
Silicon (/yg/L)
Sodium (mg/L)
Strontium (/yg/L)
Zinc (//g/L)
Chloride (mg/L)
Fluoride (mg/L)
Nitrite/Nitrate (mg/L)
Sulfate (mg/L)
Alkalinity (mg/L)
Radium 222 (pCi/L)
Plutonium 239,240 (pCi/L)
Americium 241 (pCi/L)
TDS (mg/L)
TSS (mg/L)
TOC (mg/L)
Temperature (ฐC)
pH (pH units)
Influent
Composite
38.4
106
120
165
5.8
3.9
41.9
69.7
2.9
56.4
1,330
364
2,120
3.8
100
0.65
473
142
1.0 L
0.17
0.02
0.00
2,530
13
15.2
18.7
8.1
Intermediate
Composite
82.0
85.4
69.8
99.1
6.0
3.4
172
40.6
3.6
33.2
1,800
211
1,220
8.1
59.3
0.44
231
114
1.0 L
0.44
0.02
0.03
1,460
8
4.10
19.9
8.4
Effluent
Composite
54.1
214
81.2
87
5.4
3.0 U
24.0
10.6
1.0 U
26.6
889
223
1,090
2.0 U
29.8
0.29
128
22.7
301
0.057
0.01
0.01
1,030
51
8.90
19.8
11.1
Notes:
mg/L
pCi/L
ฐC
The elements antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, lead, molybdenum, nickel, selenium,
silver, thallium, and vanadium were analyzed for, but were not detected, in all samples.
Undetected at value shown
Less than the sample concentration recorded
Micrograms per liter
Milligrams per liter
PicoCuries per liter
Degrees Celsius
45
-------
Table 5-6. Analytical Results for Noncritical Parameters from Run 2 of the CPFM SITE Demonstration
Parameter8
Aluminum (/vg/L)
Barium (/vg/L)
Boron (/vg/L)
Calcium (/vg/L)
Chromium (/vg/L)
Copper (fjg/L)
Iron (jjg/L)
Magnesium (/vg/L)
Manganese (/vg/L)
Potassium (/vg/L)
Silicon (/vg/L)
Sodium (/vg/L)
Strontium (/vg/L)
Zinc (/vg/L)
Chloride (mg/L)
Fluoride (mg/L)
Nitrite/Nitrate (mg/L)
Sulfate (mg/L)
Alkalinity (mg/L)
Radium 222 (pCi/L)
Plutonium 239,240 (pCi/L)
Americium 241 (pCi/L)
TDS (mg/L)
TSS (mg/L)
TOC (mg/L)
Temperature (ฐC)
pH (pH units)
Influent
Composite
29.0 U
101
1 16.0
161,000
4.8
5.1
48.3
67,700
3.9
54,400
1,220.0
357,000
2,010
3.2
101
0.72
318
174
1.0 L
0.24
0.02
0.09
2,520
14
13.9
11.2
8.4
Intermediate
Composite
41.9 U
102
115.0
153,000
8.3
3.0 U
98.6
64,400
3.7
50,600
1,340.0
339,000
1,910
4.3
93.6
0.69
293
147
1.0 L
NA
0.00
0.00
2,280
11
11.9
11.2
8.2
Efluent
Composite
163 U
140
95.1
136,000
4.0
3.1
39.6
48,900
2.2
48,600
1,250.0
354,000
1,700
3.8
88.0
0.53
297
1 15
9.7
0.37
0.01
0.02
2,060
72
9.46
11.45
10.7
Notes:
a The elements antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, lead, molybdenum, nickel, selenium,
silver, thallium, and vanadium were analyzed for, but were not detected, in all samples.
U Undetected at this value
L Less than the sample concentration recorded
NA Not analyzed
/vg/L Micrograms per liter
mg/L Milligrams per liter
pCi/L PioCuries per liter
ฐC Degrees Celsius
46
-------
Table 5-7. Analytical Results for Noncritical Paramters from Run 3 of the CPFM SITE Demonstration
Parameter3
Aluminum (/yg/L)
Barium (/yg/L)
Boron (/vg/L)
Calcium (/vg/L)
Chromium (/vg/L)
Copper (fjg/L)
Iron (/yg/L)
Magnesium (/vg/L)
Manganese (/yg/L)
Potassium (/yg/L)
Silicon (/yg/L)
Sodium (/yg/L)
Strontium (/yg/L)
Zinc (/vg/L)
Chloride (mg/L)
Fluoride (mg/L)
Nitrite/Nitrate (mg/L)
Sulfate (mg/L)
Alkalinity (mg/L)
Radium 222 (pCi/L)
Plutonium 239,240 (pCi/L)
Americium 241 (pCi/L)
TDS (mg/L)
TSS (mg/L)
TOC (mg/L)
Temperature (ฐC)
pH (pH units)
Influent
Composite
29.0 U
102
105.0
161,000
5.0
3.0 U
29.8
68,100
1.5
54,000
1,210.0
356,000
2,020
3.2
98.9
0.74
398
162
1.0 L
0.47
0.06
0.00
2,440
13
14.8
1 1.8
8.8
Intermediate
Composite
38.1
102
120.0
158,000
4.0 U
5.8
45.1
66,600
5.0
52,800
1,200.0
349,000
1,980
4.8
96.6
0.76
378
159
1.0 L
0.69
0.00
0.02
2,500
12
13.4
10.8
8.6
Effluent
Composite
320
282
161.0
158,000
5.7
3.8
72.6
27,200
5.2
53,100
905.0
367,000
2,000
3.8
55.1
0.51
279
53.3
398.0
0.61
0.01
0.00
1,800
126
7.98
10.7
12.2
Notes:
mg/L
pCi/L
The elements antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, lead, molybdenum, nickel, selenium,
silver, thallium, and vanadium were analyzed for, but were not detected, in all samples.
Undetected
Less than the sample concentration recorded
Micrograms per liter
Milligrams per liter
PicoCuries per liter
Degrees Celsius
47
-------
Table 5-8. Analytical Results for Noncritical Parameters from Run 4 of the CPFM SITE Demonstration
Parameter
Aluminum (/yg/L)
Barium (//g/L)
Boron (/yg/L)
Calcium (/yg/L)
Chromium (/yg/L)
Copper (//g/L)
Iron (/yg/L)
Magnesium (//g/L)
Manganese (//g/L)
Potassium (//g/L)
Silicon (/yg/L)
Sodium (/yg/L)
Strontium (//g/L)
Zinc (//g/L)
Chloride (mg/L)
Fluoride (mg/L)
Nitrite/Nitrate (mg/L)
Sulfate (mg/L)
Alkalinity (mg/L)
Radium 222 (pCi/L)
Plutonium 239,240 (pCi/L)
Am'ericium 241 (pCi/L)
TDS (mg/L)
TSS (mg/L)
TOC (mg/L)
Temperature (ฐC)
pH (pH units)
Influent
Composite
29.0 U
107
123.0
166,000
4.0 U
5.1
36.4
70,800
5.2
56,300
1,330.0
372,000
2,100
2.1
99.7
1.07
444
194
1.0
0.49
0.02
0.05
2,560
10
13.9
16.1
8.9
Intermediate
Composite
73.6
94.7
133.0
148,000
4.2
8.2
102
65,100
8.0
55,700
1,420.0
435,000
1,950
7.0
99.5
1.05
386
192
1.0
1.4
0.01
0.03
2,660
6
10.6
15.3
10.0
Effluent
Composite
724
135
159.0
138,000
4.0 U
4.6
61.4
76,400
5.2
52,700
935.0
425,000
1,860
4.3
50.4
0.71
229
67.2
556
1.7
0.04
0.01
2,120
197
7.22
15.0
1 1.7
Notes:
a The elements antimony, arsenic, beryilium, cadmium, cobalt, lead, molybdenum, nickel, selenium,
silver, thallium, and vanadium were analyzed for, but were not detected, in all samples.
U Undetected at this value
/yg/L Micrograms per liter
mg/L Milligrams per liter
pCi/L PioCuries per liter
ฐC Degrees Celsius
48
-------
Table 5-9. Analytical Results for Noncritical Parameters from Run 5 of the CPFM SITE Demonstration
Parameter3
Aluminum (//g/L)
Barium (//g/L)
Boron (//g/L)
Calcium (//g/L)
Chromium (//g/L)
Copper (//g/L)
Iron (//g/L)
Magnesium (//g/L)
Manganese (/yg/L)
Potassium (/vg/L)
Silicon (//g/L)
Sodium (//g/L)
Strontium (//g/L)
Zinc (//g/L)
Chloride (mg/L)
Fluoride (mg/L)
Nitrite/Nitrate (mg/L)
Sulfate (mg/L)
Alkalinity (mg/L)
Radium 222 (pCi/L)
Plutonium 239,240 (pCi/L)
Americium 241 (pCi/L)
TDS (mg/L)
TSS (mg/L)
TOC (mg/L)
Temperature (ฐC)
pH (pH units)
Composite
of
Influent
29.0 U
103
116.0
165,000
4.4
3.0 U
27.0
71,200
2.0
56,600
1,470.0
376,000
2,090
2.1
104
0.24
350
168
1.0
0.00
0.00
2,690
13
14.9
13.2
7.8
Composite
of
Intermediate
29.0 U
104
116.0
164,000
4.0 U
3.8
21.0
72,500
2.4
57,600
1450.0
393,000
2,120
2.0 U
105
0.34
327
187
1.0
0.01
0.01
2,610
4.0
0.50
13.0
8.2
Grab of Effluent
at 120 minutes
into run
59.3
106
118.0
150,000
4.0 U
3.0 U
37.9
62,600
2.0
55,800
1,240.0
406,000
2,050
2.0 U
94.4
0.3
277
163
3.3
0.00
0.00
2,450
56
12.7
18
10.2
Grab of Effluent
at 480 minutes
into run
92.5
107
121.0
159,000
4.0 U
3.0 U
33.9
70,300
4.1
56,200
1,400.0
381,000
2,060
10.2
101
0.44
364
174
1.0 L
0.01
-0.01
2,610
97
16.4
12.6
9.0
Grab of Effluent
at 780 minutes
into run
29.0 U
108
118.0
166,000
4.0 U
3.0 U
20.2
72,700
1.7
58,900
1,590.0
390,000
2,150
3.2
102
0.47
341
166
1.0
0.01
0.01
2,630
17
14.8
10.8
8.6
Notes:
mg/L
pCi/L
ฐC
The elements antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, lead, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver,
thallium, and vanadium were analyzed for, but were not detected, in all samples.
Undetected at this value
Less than the sample concentration recorded
Micrograms per liter
Milligrams per liter
PioCuries per liter
Degrees Celsius
49
-------
Metals and radionuclides in the spent filter packs and
sludge from the miniclarifier (collected at the end of all
runs) are shown in Tables 5-15 and 5-16. These results
show that the spent filter cake does not contain a
significant amount of sorbed radionuclides. However,
the sludge from the miniclarifier is quite high in uranium
(170 micrograms per gram [/>tg/g]) and gross alpha
activity (320 pCi/L).
Table 5-15 shows that the spent filter cake is mostly
aluminum, magnesium, barium, calcium, and silicon. The
moisture content, density, weight of FF 1000, and
performance on the PFLT are shown in Table 5-17. This
table shows that the amount of moisture left in the spent
filter packs varied from about 21 percent to 29 percent.
Variation was probably due to the duration of dewatering
after each run. The dry weight of FF 1000 used for runs
1 through 4 varied from 26.4 kg to 33.2 kg. All spent
filter cake samples from runs 1 through 4 passed the
PFLT, indicating that they do not contain free liquids.
The flow rates for each run are presented in Tables 5-
10 through 5-14. Flow rates for runs 1 through 4 are
similar and range from 3.8 to 4.2 gpm (14.4 to 15.9
Lpm). Use of sulfuric acid and sodium sulfide (for run 4)
was measured by weight rather than by How rate and
duration. These data are presented in Tables 5-10 through
5-14.
Pressure drop across the colloid filters as a function of
time could not be accurately measured because the gauges
installed by the developer were not sensitive enough.
Electricity usage for each run was measured by the
amount of gasoline used by portable generators that
powered the equipment. This information is presented in
Tables 5-10 through 5-14.
Disposal options for spent filter cake are determined by
its radionuclide and leachable metal content. Table 5-16
shows that concentrations of uranium in the filter cake
ranged from 2.1 to 5.7 and gross alpha concentrations
ranged from not detectable to 10 picoCuries per gram
(pCi/g). In addition, Tables 5-18 and 5-19 show TCLP
test results indicating that the filter cake does not contain
extractable metals and that extractable radionuclides are
below federal drinking water standards.
5.5
Conclusions
5.5.7 Primary Objectives
The primary objective of the demonstration was to
assess the CPFM system's ability to remove uranium and
gross alpha contamination to levels below CWQCC
standards. The critical parameters used to achieve this
objective were uranium and gross alpha concentrations in
the system influent, intermediate, and effluent. Three
runs were conducted in this first part of the demonstration
to evaluate the reproducibility of the treatment results.
These runs (runs 1 through 3) were conducted under the
same operating conditions such as influent pH, flow rate,
and amount of FF 1000 used in the filter packs. This
information has been presented in Tables 5-10 through 5-
14. Analytical results for the critical parameters indicate
that uranium concentrations provide a reliable assessment
of CPFM system performance and that the gross alpha
data should be used with caution in evaluating the system.
Although the three runs were conducted at the same
operating conditions, removal efficiency for uranium
ranged from a low of 58.4 percent for run 2 to a high of
90.6 percent for run 1. Review of operational data does
not reveal the cause of this variation. Therefore, the
ability of the CPFM system to remove uranium appears to
be variable. At optimum operating efficiency without
chemical pretreatment, as observed during run 1 of the
demonstration, the CPFM system produced effluent with
9.5 jug/L of uranium, compared to the CWQCC standard
of 7 /xg/L. For run 4, using sodium sulfide pretreatment,
the CPFM system produced effluent with 5.1 /ug/L of
uranium. However this result is based on only a single
composite sample rather than a sample and duplicate as for
runs 1 through 3.
5.5.2 Secondary Objectives
Four secondary objectives were identified for the
demonstration. These are:
Document operating conditions
Estimate operating costs
Assess the ability of the CPFM system to remove
other radionuclides
Evaluate disposal options for spent filter cake
Data on operating conditions are presented in Tables 5-
10 through 5-14. These data show that runs 1 through 3
were conducted at nearly the same influent pH, flow rate,
and amount of FF 1000 in the filter packs. Therefore,
variation in the ability of the CPFM system to remove
uranium from influent does not appear to be related to
these parameters.
50
-------
Table 5-10. Field Parameter Data From Run 1 of the CPFM SITE Demonstration
Locatioi
M1
M4
M9
M5
M6
Parameter
Time From Start of Run
pH (pH units)
Conductivity (mS)
Temperature (ฐC)
Flow Meter Reading (gpm)
[Lpm]
Actual Flow Rate (gpm) [Lpm]
pH
Conductivity
Temperature
Flow Meter Reading
Actual Flow Rate
pH
Conductivity
Temperature
Flow Meter Reading
PI-1 (psi) [kg/cm2]
PI-2
Pressure drop
PI-3 (psi) [kg/cm2]
PI-4
Pressure drop
Time 1 Time 2
Time 3
(15 min) (40 min) (80 min)
7.0
4.3
16.1
5.0 [18
4.0 [15
9.0
1.5
17.5
5.0 [18
3.7 [14
10.6
2.5
8.6
4.3
18.9
.9] -- 5
.1] - 4
8.8
1.9
18.9
.9] -- 5
.0] -- 3
1 1.9
3.6
17.4 18.3
2 [0.14] 2 [0.14]
0
2 [0.1
0
0
0
0
9] 2 [0.14]
0
0
0
8.0
2.1
17.5
.0 [18.9]
.0 [15.1]
8.3
2.4
19.3
.3 [20.0]
.9 [14.3]
1 1.8
3.4
19.4
--
9 [0.63]
0
9 [0.63]
0
0
0
Time 4
120 min)
8.3
4.3
17.9
5.0 [18.9]
4.0 [15.1]
8.4
1.6
19.2
5.1 [19.3]
3.8 [14.4]
11.6
1.9
19.4
14 [0.98]
0
14 [0.98]
0
0
0
Time 5
(160 min)
8.8
4.3
20.0
5.0 [18.9]
4.0 [15.1]
8.5
3.2
21.7
4.5 [17.0]
3.3 [12.5]
11.2
3.1
21.3
15 [1.0]
5 [0.35]
10 [0.70]
0
0
0
Time 6
(200 min)
8.1
4.3
19.2
4.0 [15.1]
3.2 [12.1]
7.9
3.4
20.8
4.8 [18.2]
3.5 [13.2]
10.4
3.0
20.8
"
18 [1.3]
10 [0.70]
8 [0.56]
5 [0.35]
0
5 [0.35]
Time 7
(240 min)
8.3
4.0
21.6
5.0 [18.9]
4.0 [15.1]
8.3
3.6
21.8
5.1 [19.3]
3.8 [14.4]
10.6
3.3
22.2
19 [1.34]
16 [1.12]
3 [0.21]
10 [0.70]
0
10 [0.70]
Average
8.2
3.9
18.7
4.8 [18.
3.8 [14.
8.4
2.5
19.9
5.0 [18,
3.7 [14
11.1
3.0
19.8
2]
4]
.9]
.0]
Total Usage
M21
Notes:
gpm
Lpm
mS
Ibs
Sulfuric acid usage (Ibs) [kg]
Power consumption (measured
No measurement
Gallons per minute
Liters per minute
MilliSiemens
Pounds
23 [8.58]
as gallons [liters] of gasoline used)
ฐC
psi
kg/cm2
kg
Degrees Celsius
Pounds per square
inch
7.5 [28
.4]
Kilograms per square centimeter
Kilograms
-------
Table 5-11. Field Parameter Data From Run 2 of the CPFM SITE Demonstration
to
Location
Ml
M4
M9
M5
M6
M21
Mntoc
Parameter
.
Time From Start of Run
pH (pH units)
Conductivity (mS)
Temperature (ฐC)
Flow Meter Reading (gpm)
[Lpm]
Actual Flow Rate (gpm) [Lpm]
PH
Conductivity
Temperature
Flow Meter Reading
Actual Flow Rate
PH
Conductivity
Temperature
Flow Meter Reading
Actual Flow Rate
PI-1 (psi) [kg/cm2]
PI-2
Pressure drop
PI-3
PI-4
Pressure drop
Sulfuric acid usage (Ibs) [kg]
Power consumption (measured as
~
Time 1 Time 2
(15 min) (40 min)
83 q 1
\J .^J C7. I
3.5 3 5
10.5 1 1 1
. V . W I I . I
5.0 [18. 9]
4.0(15.1]
"7-3 8.6
3.2 '3 ?
"~ w . ฃ.
10.1 10 ft
' v ' 1 w . O
11.9 11.4
2.9
10.7 11.3
5.0 [18.9]
4.0 [15.1]
5 [0.35]
5 [0.35]
n
\j
0
0
gallons of gasoline used)
Time 3 Time 4
(80 min) 120 (min)
'
91 *^
1 7.3
3C t~* m
5 3.4
11 -7 11*-*
1 -7 1 1 .8
5.3 [19.9]
4.2 [15.9]
80 -70
o 7.8
30 0/1
.ฃ. 3.4
11 O t + *
i-o 1 1 .4
4.8 [18.0]
3.8 [14,4]
10.8 10.3
3.0 3.0
191 110
1 ^- I 1 1 .3
"
"
6 [0.42]
0
6 [0.42]
0
0
0
.
._
Time 5
.
(160 min)
8.4
3.1
10.5
5.0 [18.9]
4.0 [15.1]
8.3
3.2
11.0
5.0 [18.9]
4.0 [15.1]
10.0
3.4
1 1.1
5.0 [18.9]
4.0 [15.1]
4 [0.28]
0
4 [0.28]
0
0
0
"
Time 6
(200 min)
__
8.3
3.5
11.7
5.5 [20.8]
4.4 [16.7]
8.4
3.3
11.9
5.5 [20.8]
4.4 [16.7]
9.9
3.2
12.2
5.5 [20.8]
4.4 [16.7]
4 [0.28]
0
4 [0.28]
0
0
0
"
Time 7
(240 min)
8.3
3.4
13.3
5.2 [19.7]
4.2 [15.9]
8.4
3.4
13.3
5.2 [19.7]
4.2 [15.9]
9.7
3.4
13.1
5.2 [19.7]
4.2 [15.9]
4 [0.28]
0
4 [0.28]
0
0
0
-
Average
8.4
3.4
11.2
5.2 [19.7]
4.2 [15.9]
8.2
3.2
11.2
5.1 [19.3]
4.1 [15.5]
10.7
3.1
11.5
5.2 [19.7]
4.1 [15.5]
Total Usage
20 [7.46]
10 [37.8]
No measurement
gpm Gallons per minute
Lpm Liters per minute
mS MilliSiemens
Ibs Pounds
ฐC Degrees Celsius
psi z Pounds per square inch
kg/cm Kilograms per square centimeter
kg Kilograms
-------
Table 5-12. Field Parameter Data From Run 3 of the CPFM SITE Demonstration
Parameter
Location
Time From Start of Run
M1
M4
M9
M5
M6
M21
Notes:
gpm
Lpm
mS
Ibs
pH (pH units)
Conductivity (mS)
Temperature (ฐC)
Flow Meter Reading (gpm)
[Lpm]
Actual Flow Rate (gpm) [Lpm]
pH
Conductivity
Temperature
Flow Meter Reading
Actual Flow Rate
PH
Conductivity
Temperature
Flow Meter Reading
Actual Flow Rate
PI-1 (psi) [kg/cm2]
PI-2
Pressure drop
PI-3
PI-4
Pressure drop
Sulfuric acid usage (Ibs) [kg]
Power consumption (measured
No measurement
Gallons per minute
Liters per minute
MilliSiemens
Pounds
Time 1
(15 min)
9.0
3.2
11.3
4.8 [18.0]
3.8 [14.4]
8.7
3.1
10.9
5.0 [18.9]
4.0 [15.1]
12.8
5.4
10.5
-
--
14 [0.98]
0
14 [0.98]
0
0
0
Time 2
(40 min)
8.4
3.0
11.9
5.0 [18.9]
4.0 [15.1]
8.1
3.3
10.9
4.8 [18.0]
3,8 [14.4]
12.6
4.3
10.2
-
--
16 [1.1]
0
16 [1.1]
0
0
0
as gallons [liters] of gasoline
ฐC Degrees
psi Pounds
Celsius
Time 3
(80 min)
8.8
3.3
11.5
5.0 [18.9]
4.0 [15.1]
8.7
3.3
10.7
5.0 [18.9]
4.0 [15.1]
12.8
4.0
10.7
--
18.5 [1.3]
0
18.5 [1.3]
0
0
0
used)
Time 4
120 min)
9.2
3.2
1 1.7
4.3 [16.1]
3.4 [12.9]
9.1
3.2
11.1
4.8 [18.0]
3.8 [14.4]
12.
3.2
11.0
--
22 [1.5]
0
22 [1.5]
0
0
0
Time 5
(160 min)
8.7
3.3
12.6
5.0 [18.9]
4.0 [15.1]
8.4
3.2
10.9
5.0 [18.9]
4.0 [15.1]
11.6
3.0
10.9
--
17 [1.2]
0
17 [1.2]
0
0
0
Time 6
(200 min)
8.8
3.4
12.5
4.0 [15.1]
3.2 [12.1]
8.6
1 1.7
11.0
4.5 [17.0]
3.6 [13.6]
11.7
3.1
10.9
--
19 [1.3]
0
19 [1.3]
0
0
0
Time 7
(240 min)
9.0
3.3
11.0
5.0 [18.9]
4.0 [15.1]
8.8
3.5
10.6
5.0 [18.9]
4.0 [15.1]
11.2
3.1
10.5
--
19 [1.3]
0
19 [1.3]
0
0
0
Average
8.8
3.2
11.8
4.7 [17.8]
3.8 [14.4]
8.6
4.4
10.8
4.9 [18.5]
3.9 [14.8]
12.2
3.7
10.7
17 [1.2]
0
17 [1.2]
0
0
0
Total Usage
20 [7.46]
7 [26.5]
per square inch
kg/cm2 Kilograms per square
centimeter
kg Kilograms
-------
Table 5-13. Field Parameter Data From Run 4 of the CPFM SITE Demonstration
Location
M1
Parameter
Time From Sta
pH (pH units)
Conductivity (mS)
Temperature (ฐC)
Flow Meter Reading (gpm)
[Lpm]
M4 pH
Conductivity
Temperature
Flow Meter Reading
Actual Flow Rate
M9 pH
Conductivity
Temperature
Flow Meter Reading
M5 PM (psi) [Kg/cm2]
PI-2
Pressure drop
M6 PI-3
PI-4
Pressure drop
M21
Notes:
gpm
Lpm
ms
Ibs
!I Time 1 Time 2
t of Run (15 min) (40 min)
9.1
0*
.1
1 3.8
3 (gpm) 5.0 [18
jpm) [Lpm] 4.0 [15
9.2
3.5
13.2
I 5.0 [18.
4.0 [15.
12.6
50
.8
13.2
4 [0.28]
0
4 [0.28]
0
n
\j
Ibs) [kg]
(measured as gallons
e (Ibs) [kg]
9.1
3.4
14.2
9] 5.0 [18.9]
1] 4.0 [15.1]
9.6
0.1
13.8
9] 5.0 [18.9]
1] 4.0 [15.1]
12.5
5.1
13.7
4 [0.28]
0
4 [0.28]
0
0
[liters] of gasoline
Time 3
(80 min)
8.9
2.7
15.3
5.3 [19.9]
4.2 [15.9]
9.8
3.5
14.8
4.8 [18.0]
3.8 [14.4]
12.1
4.6
14.7
6 [0.42]
o
6 [0.42]
0
0
0
used)
"
Time 4
^ ^ _
120 min)
9.0
3.5
17.4
5.3 [19.9]
4.2 [15.9]
10.2
3.5
16.4
5.3 [19.9]
4.2(15.9]
11.6
4.0
16.1
9 [0.63]
9 [0.63]
n
\J
0
0
'
Time 5
(160 min)
8.6
0.2
17.2
5.3 [19.9]
4.2 [15.9]
10.1
3.5
17.0
5.0 [18.9]
4.0 [15.1]
11.2
3.1
16.1
12 [0.84]
0
12 [0.84]
0
0
~
Time 6
"
(200 min)
2.63
18.1
5.0 [18.9]
4.0 [15.1]
10.4
3C
.VJ
16.7
5.0 [18.9]
4.0 [15.1]
11.0
3.5
15.7
13.5 [0.95]
0
13.5 [0.95]
0
0
0
i
Time 7
f?4n ' i
s~i
3.5
16.8
5.3 [19.9]
4.1 [15.9]
10.5
^ r*
o .0
15.2
4.8 [18.0]
3.8 [14.4]
1 1.0
3.7
15.3
14.5 [1.0]
0
14.5 [1.0]
0
0
0
Average
8.9
2 2
ฃ- ฃ-
16.1
5.1 [19.3]
4.1 [15.5]
10.0
31
1
15.3
5.0 [18.9]
4.0 [15.1]
1 1 .7
4 1
^ ฃ-
15.0
9.0 [0.63
0.0
9.0 [0.63]
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Usage
17.5 [6.53]
8.0 [75.7]
14 [6.33]
No measurement
Gallons per minute
Liters per minute
MilliSiemens
Pounds
ฐC Degrees Celsius
psi 2 Pounds per square inch
kg/cm Kilograms per square centimeter
kg Kilograms
-------
Table 5-14. Field Parameters From Run 5 of the CPFM SITE Demonstration.
Parameter
Location Time From Start
of Run
M1 pH (pH units)
Conductivity (mS)
Temperature (ฐC)
Flow Meter
Reading (gpm)
[Lpm]
Actual Flow Rate
(gpm){Lpm]
M4 pH
Conductivity (mS)
Temperature (ฐC)
Flow Meter
Reading
Actual Flow Rate
M18 = L4 pH
Conductivity (MS)
Temperature (ฐC)
Flow Meter
Reading
Actual Flow Rate
M19 = L5 pH
Conductivity (mS)
Temperature (ฐC)
Flow Meter
Reading
Actual Flow Rate
M5 PI-1 9 (psi)
[kg/cm2]
Time 1
(120 min)
8.13
3.65
19.1
4.78
[17.8]
3.8 [14.3]
8.43
3.63
18.0
5.0 [18.9]
4.0 [15.1]
10.18
3.59
17.2
..
9.97
3.62
17.5
5 [0.35]
Time 2
(240 min)
7.54
3.67
17.9
5.0 [18.9]
4.0 [15.1]
8.07
3.67
18.1
5.0 [18.9]
4.0 [15.1]
8.76
3.66
18.2
__
9.54
3.68
19.9
..
._
4 [0.28]
Time 3
(360
min)
7.78
3.62
17.1
5.0
[18.9]
4.0
[15.1]
8.11
3.32
15.5
4.7
[17.8]
3.8
[14.4]
8.61
3.59
15.7
_.
9.42
3.40
16.5
__
__
4 [0.28]
Time 4
(480
min)
7.93
2.94
11.5
5.0
[18.9]
4.0
115.1]
8,43
3.29
11.9
4.7
117.8]
3.8
[14.4]
9.03
3.56
12.6
..-
9.34
3.47
12.9
..
4 [0.28]
Time 5
(540
min)
8.34
2.55
12.2
5.0
[18.9]
4.0
[15.1]
8.77
0.22
12.2
5.0
[18.9]
4.0
[15.1]
8.83
0.23
13.7
-.
-.
9.29
0.29
13.3
-.
-.
4 [0.28]
Time 6
(600
min)
8.01
3.74
1 1.7
5.8
[21.9]
4.6
[17.4]
8.26
3.45
11.7
5.0
[18.9]
4.0
[15.1]
8.71
3.70
12.9
--
8.98
3.32
12.6
-.
--
4 [0.28]
Time 7
(660
min)
7.84
3.69
11.9
5.0
[18.9]
4.0
[15.1]
8,25
3.66
1 1 .7
4.6
[17.4]
3.7
[14.0]
8.56
3.05
12.8
3.7
[14.0]
3.0
[11.2]
9.06
3.39
12.1
2.3 [8.3]
1.8 [7.0]
3 [0.21]
Time 8
(720 min)
7.74
3.76
1 1
5.2
[19.6]
4.2 [15.9]
7,99
16.24
1 1 .1
5.0 [18.9]
4.0 [15.1]
8.83
3.61
11.8
-
9.18
3.53
11.4
3 [0.21]
Time 9
(780
min)
7.59
1.772
9.9
5. [18.9]
4.0
[15.1]
8.13
3.76
9.8
5.1
[19.3]
4.1
[15.5]
8.36
3.64
10.9
3.4
[12.9]
2.7
[10.3]
8.60
3.78
10.8
2.2 [8.3]
1.8 [6.7]
3 [0.21]
Time 10
(840
min)
7.57
3.72
10.1
5.5
[20.8]
4.4
[16.6]
7.99
3.82
10.5
5.0
[18.9]
4.0
[15.1]
8.49
3.78
11.00
-
--
9.03
3.76
11.5
-
--
2 [0.14]
Time 1 1
(900 Average
min)
7.847
3.31
13.24
5.1
119.3]
4.1
(15.5]
8.24
4.51
13.055
4.5
[18.9]
3.9
[14.8]
8.58 8.84
3.80 3.24
11.00 13.68
3.5
[13.2]
2.8
[10.6]
8.88 9.24
3.30 3.22
10.7 13.85
2.2
[8.3]
1.8
[6.7]
2 [0.14] 4 [0.28]
-------
Table 5-14. Field Parameters From Run 5 of the CPFM SITE Demonstration. (Continued)
Dry
ON
Total Weight of
Pack (kg)
Weight of
Container
Weight of FF
1000
Location
1
6.24
0.151
6.089
Location
2
5.466
0.145
5.321
Wet Total weight of 10.15 11.41
pack
Weight of
container
0.151 0.145
Weight of FF10QQ 9.999 11.265
Notes:
gpm
Lpm
mS
Ibs
No measurement
Gallons per minute
Liters per minute
MilliSiemens
Pounds
ฐC Degrees Celsius
psi Pounds per square inch
kg/cm2 Kilograms per square centimeter
kg Kilograms
-------
Table 5-15. Noncritical Metal Concentrations in Spent Filter Material from the CPFM SITE Demonstration
Concentration
Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Notes:
Run 1
6,320
6.9U
5.3U
3,020
0.20
19.4
0.7U
3,490
2.7
1.8
1.4
2,070
12.4
230,000
68.7
3.6
4.9
1,350
7.8U
1,73011
0.56
3,330
144
9.8U
7.9
10.2
Run 2
66,500
6.2U
4.8U
1,180
0.30
28.4
0.63U
4,470
2.8
0.69
0.52
938
12.4
259,000
81.7
1.5
2.5U
1,560
7.1U
3,060
0.51U
1,370
81.7
8.9U
4.8
8.8
Run 3
29,000
6.1U
4.7U
7,060
0.16
14.1
0.62U
1,690
1 .7
4.1
0.37U
500
11.0
101,000
41.4
0.99
5.3
855
6.9U
1290
0.5U
527
99U
8.7U
2.1
5.7
Run 4
64,600
6.9U
5.4U
237
0.14U
19.3
0.71U
1,510
2.9
0.42
0.64
503
4.1
261,000
54.2
1.2
2.8U
137U
7.9U
846
0.56U
238
4.2
28.0
4.9
8.5
(A/g/kg)
Run 5
Pack 1
67,500
6.8U
5.3U
16.7
0.14U
18.3
0.69U
1,860
3.0
0.42U
1 .1
536
4U
274,000
57.0
1.3
2.8U
135U
7.8
1,250
0.55U
360
4.9
17.5
5.4
9.0
Run 5
Pack 2
69,200
6.5
5.1
33.9
0.13
25.1
0.66
2,620
3.1
0.40
0.40
588
8.7
279,000
59.2
1.8
7.4
250
7.4
1,190
0.53
557
18.4
24.2
5.1
10.1
Miniclarifier
Sludge
1,390
34. 1U
26. 4U
214
0.7U
63.1
3.5U
226,000
9.0
2.1U
16.0
2,890
20. 2U
50,300
40.2
5.6U
150.0
785
38. 9U
4610
2.8U
3,830
1190
48. 7U
2.1U
58.9
/yg/kg Micrograms per kilogram
U Undetected at this value
57
-------
Table 5-16. Radionuclide Concentrations in Spent Filter Cake Solids from the CPFM SITE Demonstration
Analyte
Uranium (/;g/g)
Gross Alpha (pCi/g)
Plutonium (pCi/g)
Americum (pCi/g)
Radium (pCi/g)
Note:
Run 1
10.0 ฑ 0.13
-3 ฑ 14
0.00 ฑ 0.02
0.01 ฑ 0.02
0.37 ฑ 0.14
Run 2
1.0 ฑ 18
12 ฑ 16
0.04 ฑ 0.03
0.01 ฑ 0.02
0.51 ฑ 0.15
Run 3
1.6 ฑ 0.16
15 ฑ 14
0.01 ฑ 0.02
0.02 ฑ 0.03
0.44 ฑ 0.13
Run 4
1.2 ฑ 0.05
8 ฑ 14
0.01 ฑ 0.02
0.00 ฑ 0.01
0.02 ฑ 0.15
Run 5 Pack 1
_
2.2 ฑ 0.16
11 ฑ 14
0.01 ฑ 0.02
0.00 ฑ 0.01
0.05 ฑ 0.16
Run 5 Pack 2
2.7 ฑ 13
-6 ฑ 12
0.02 ฑ 0.03
0.00 ฑ 0.01
0.85 ฑ 0.17
Miniclarifier
Sludge
170 ฑ 5.6
320 ฑ 36
0.00 ฑ 0.01
0.01 ฑ 0.02
0.07 ฑ 0.08
Micrograms per gram
pCi/g PicoCuries per gram
cx
-------
Table 5-17. Physical Characteristics of Solids from the CPFM SITE Demonstration
Analyte
Percent Moisture (%)
Bulk Density (g/cc)
Dry weight of FF 1000 (kg)
Wet weight of FF 1000 (kg)
Paint Filter Liquids Test
Notes:
Run 1
29.2
1.17
29.7
63.7
No free
liquids
Run 2
21.8
0.98
31.8
52.2
No free
liquids
Run 3
20.8
1.14
33.2
72.5
No free
liquids
Run 4 Run 5
Pack 1
29.8 29.3
1.15 1.15
26.4 6.1
65.7 10
No free NA
liquids
Run 5
Pack 2
27.0
1.19
5.3
11.3
NA
Miniclarifier
Sludge
85.7
1.07
NA
NA
NA
kg kilograms
NA Not analyzed
g/cc Grams per cubic centimeter
Table 5-18. Analytical Results for TCLP Extract Solutions for the CPFM SITE Demonstration
Parameter
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Run 5
Pack 1
Run 5
Pack 2
Uranium (fjg/L)
Gross Alpha (pCi/L)
2.1
0.0
2.1
12
3.4
15
2.6
8.1
4.7
11
5.7
0.0
59
-------
Table 5-19. Analytical Results for TCLP Extract Solutions for the CPFM SITE Demonstration
Parameter
Uranium (//g/L)
Gross Alpha (pCi/L)
Arsenic (mg/L)
Barium (mg/L)
Cadmium (mg/L)
Chromium (mg/L)
Lead (mg/L)
Mercury (mg/L)
Selenium (mg/L)
Silver (mg/L)
Note:
U Undetected at this \/aino
Run 5 Pack 1
0.1 U
0.0 U
380 U
2,840 U
50 U
40 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
40 U
Run 5 Pack 2
0.1 U
0.0 U
380 U
4,780 U
50 U
40 U
1 0 U
10 U
10 U
40 U
Micrograms per liter
mg/L Milligrams per liter
pCi/L PicoCuries per liter
Operating costs have been estimated using standard
EPA procedures and indicate that it would cost
approximately $7 to treat 1,000 gallons of influent for a
system operating at a site for a single year. This cost is
reduced to $2 for 1,000 gallons if the system operates at
the site for 10 years.
The ability of the CPFM system to remove the
radionuclides plutonium, americium, and radium was
included as a secondary objective, although influent levels
were anticipated to be near the detection limit, because
discharge limits are also very low (0.05 pCi/L)
However, analysis of influent during the demonstration
showed that influents were at or below the 0.01 pCi/L
detection limit and always below the discharge limit
Therefore, the ability of the CPFM system to remove
these elements could not be evaluated during this
demonstration.
Numerous chemical and physical parameters were
evaluated for the spent filter cake to provide the
information required to determine how the spent filter
cake may be disposed of. The filter cake did not contain
free liquids and did not contain any metals above the
regulatory limit in the TCLP extract. In addition, the
spent filter cake contained uranium and gross alpha
activity at 1 to 10 ^g/g and 0 to 15 pCi/g respectively.
This information may assist potential users of the
technology evaluate disposal costs. However, at the
conclusion of the demonstration, DOE took possession of
all waste generated during the demonstration for later
disposal. Therefore, actual disposal costs were not
determined.
60
-------
Section 6
Technology Status
The CPFM technology is being considered for
several sites. Improvements to the CPFM system to be
used at the additional sites are described in the vendors'
claims for the technology (see Appendix A). Pilot-scale
testing is underway at the DOE Oak Ridge National
Laboratory through a joint venture. The pilot test will
determine CPFM process effectiveness in treating mixed
waste. In another pilot-scale test, funded by the
Westinghouse Science and Technology Group, the
process is being applied as part of a treatment train for
mixed wastewater that has been pretreated to remove
organic compounds and solids. The CPFM process is
also planned for the commercial arena in the area of
metal finishing wastes. FFT is also building a CPFM
system for a mining operation in Peru that will treat
wastewater containing copper, zinc, lead, and arsenic.
A total of 25 commercial projects are planned.
61
-------
Section 7
References
Evans, G. 1990. Estimating Innovative Technology
Costs for the SITE Program. Journal of Air and
Waste Management Association, 40:7, pages
1047 through 105.
62
-------
Appendix A
Vendor Claims for the Technology
A.I Introduction
The demand for improved methodologies and
technologies to remove metallic pollutants from water
has increased dramatically during the past few years due
in part to expanded waste management activities; stricter
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) and publicly owned treatment works (POTW)
discharge permit limits; the federal government's
commitment to remediate National Priorities List (NPL)
radioactive sites; increased public awareness of the
environment; economic factors; and legal liability issues.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has outlined a
long-term plan committing the agency to clean up 45
years worth of accumulated contamination at nuclear
weapons sites and facilities. As a result, DOE has
scheduled environmental remediation activities for more
than 3,700 radionuclide and hazardous chemical waste
sites. These DOE sites taken together with the
thousands of Superfund sites with heavy metals (and
sometimes radionuclide) contamination represent a
massive remediation problem that will present a
tremendous fiscal and technological challenge in the
future.
At an estimated two-thirds of the DOE and
Superfund sites, groundwater, stored water, pond water,
or sludges and soils are contaminated by heavy metals.
DOE's 26 NPL radioactively contaminated sites
essentially all have heavy metals and radionuclide
problems. They range from uranium and thorium, to
low-level radioactive wastes (LLRW), to nuclear
weapons production and processing wastes representing
uranium, enriched uranium, and transuranic (TRU)
materials. Federal statutes require that remediation
restoration of these federal sites be carried out in
compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA).
CERCLA as amended by SARA establishes a cleanup
program intended to:
Encourage the use of cost-effective methods
Promote remedial actions that should yield
permanent solutions
Minimize secondary waste streams
Use alternative treatment technologies
Conform to applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARAR)
Protect human health and the environment
The chemistry of heavy metal and radionuclide
pollutants varies from site to site, presenting a
remediation challenge for achieving strict discharge
standards. Conventional filtration, sorption, and ion
exchange methods have proved useful for removing
macro- to micro-particle inorganic metallic forms from
water, but are limited by performance and cost when
large volumes of trace metals and radionuclides must be
removed. Particle filtration is not efficient for removing
trace micromolecular and ionic metallic forms from
water. Microfiltration readily removes 0.025- to 10-
micron particles from water, but has generally been
limited in the molecular to ionic range.
Ultrafiltration is widely used for treating small
volumes of liquids containing low total suspended solids
(TSS) concentrations, but is limited in throughput and
capacity for most heavy metals and radionuclide
remediation applications. Ion exchange methods have
broad utility for the removal of anionic and cationic
soluble metallic ions, but have microchanneling, bed,
and residual problems, higher operational costs, and
higher disposal costs for radionuclide-contaminated spent
bed material. Reverse osmosis is highly efficient for
removing a wide range of soluble inorganic metallic
ions, but can be expensive to operate and may not
remove trace metals and radionuclides existing as
63
-------
complexed, chelated forms. In addition, the salt brine
waste produced by this methodology contributes to the
waste disposal problem.
A.2 Colloid Polishing Filter Method
The Colloid Polishing Filter was developed to
circumvent some of the performance limitations of
conventional methods used to remove heavy metals and
radionuclide pollutants from water. In addition, there is
a need to reduce the disposal costs for generated solid
wastes by decreasing the quantity of spent ion exchange
resins and miscellaneous solids. Figure A-l illustrates
the wide dynamic range achievable for removing trace
heavy metal and nontritium radionuclide pollutants from
water using the new methodology. The methodology has
application to heavy metals and nontritium radionuclide
removal from groundwater, pond water, stored water,
and wastewater (such as secondary wastewater from
sludge or soil washing, solids dewatering or surface
decontamination wastewater streams). Several case
studies discussing these applications appear in Appendix
B.
Metallic pollutants can be removed from water in
colloidal form, ions, in both complexed and chelated
forms. Heavy metal and radionuclide pollutants can be
efficiently removed from water based on the principles
of charge dependent, surface sorption, charge and size
related chemical complexing phenomena and, to a lesser
extent (less than 10 percent), physical trapping or
precipitated forms. Site-specific geochemistry, water
chemistry, and the types and the chemical and physical
forms of the metals and radionuclides are important
operational variables. Therefore, it will be important to
optimize the chemical preconditioning and flocculation
tank procedures for each site to achieve high
performance from the CPFM.
For example, in the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) demonstration at the Rocky Flats Plan
(RFP), the low TSS, clear, interceptor trench pump
house (ITPH) groundwater used in the bench tests was
stored in aboveground tanks prior to the demonstration
and an algae bloom produced turbidity. Colloidal algae
particles from the algae bloom were not removed by the
clarifier or 10-micron bag filter upstream of the
polishing filters. As a result, excessive TSS collected in
the filter packs during testing and interfered with the
sorption beds. Generally, when algae are present, these
particles should be treated and removed before using the
CPFM system. However, removal was not possible at
the demonstration due to limited time and a preset
demonstration text matrix.
The flow diagram in Figure A-2 illustrates how the
CPFM is used for treating heavy metals and nontritium
radionuclide water pollutants. The influent water is
pumped to a reaction tank and then to a flocculation tank
for chemical conditioning. Conditioning shifts the
equilibrium of the metallic pollutants toward particle
agglomeration (that is, formation of micro- and colloidal
particles). The bulk TSS is removed either indirectly
(clarifier and bag filter) or directly (high crossflow
microfilter) and dewatered into a filter cake for
stabilization and disposal. The low-TSS water is then
pumped to the Colloid Polishing Filter beds using
controlled fluid flow and serial processing to ensure high
performance. The pH of the treated water is monitored
and adjusted (if necessary) to pH 8 to 8.3 and the water
is stored in holding tanks for testing and verification of
the metals and radionuclide concentrations before the
water is discharged or reused. To date, Filter Flow
Technology, Inc. (FFT) has designed CPFM systems
ranging from less than 5 to more than 100 gallons per
minute (gpm), and is currently working on a 500 gpm
skid-mounted system to treat secondary wastewater from
soil washing of radionuclide-contaminated soils. The
Filter Flow (FF) 1000 sorption bed material (inorganic,
insoluble pellets) can be formulated, blended, and
produced to match the site-specific problem being treated
(that is, groundwater contaminated with uranium,
plutonium, and americium radium 226, zinc 65, cesium
137, cobalt 60, or lower valence heavy metals). Filter
packs can be loaded with bed material tailored for the
various pollutant forms and used in series to first remove
one form of pollutant, then subsequently remove the
other forms in different filter packs. This versatility
should prove useful when using the methodology at a
variety of remediation sites having different water
chemistry and dissimilar pollutants.
A.3 Design and Product Improvements
The RFETS SITE demonstration in September 1993
showed that basic engineering design and system
configuration were adequate. Still, several changes have
been made to improve the equipment for higher flow
rates (25, 50, and 100 gpm), improve system reliability,
increase performance efficiency, and reduce operational
64
-------
MICRONS (LOG SCALE)
0.0001 0.001 0.01
0.1 1.0
10 100 1000
Colloldol Turbidity Visible ซd!mซnt
Icon
Range
Molecular
Range
Macro
Molecular
Range
Micro
Particle
Range
Macro Particle Range
MICROFILTRATION
FILTER PRESS
ULTRAFILTRATION
PARTICLE FILTRATION
COLLOID POLISHING FILTER METHOD (CPFM)
Figure A-1. Comparison of the Particle Removal Size Range for Conventional Versus the CPFM
65
-------
CPFM Treatment Train
Mobile Unit
/Solids \
Chemical
Pre-Condftioning
Influent Water
Heavy Metals
Non-tritum LLRW
Uranium
. TDM
i r\w
/ Removal j
I -Direct J
Vlndirect/
Filter
Sur
Che
CPFM
face sorption
mipnl hinrllnn
Physical trapping
Cake
Reduc
LLRW
Bed
ed
waste
Reused
Discharge
water to
meet strict
MCL's
Fi9ure A-2. F.ovv Diagram Showing the Basic Treatment Train Used for the CPFM
66
-------
costs. Examples of improvements to the CPFM since
the demonstration are outlined below.
The filter pack compartment has been redesigned
to increase the bed volume and capacity by a
factor of 8 to 9 and increase the strength of the
filter pack material.
A basic, vertical carbon steel (or stainless steel)
and polypropylene Colloid Polishing Filter has
been designed with five filter packs totaling 14.5
cubic feet bed volume that v/ill process up to 35
gpm for a wide range of metallic pollutants.
The hydraulic ram assembly and support plates
have been reworked so that the filter packs are
loaded (or unloaded) one at a time. This
improvement simplifies the changeout procedure,
increases the safety factor (particularly for
gamma emitting isotopes), and reduces the
overall height of the equipment by 25 percent.
The capability to more efficiently remove heavy
metal pollutants with various chemical and
physical characteristics has been enhanced by
using serial removal of the various species in
filter packs loaded with bed material formulated
and manufactured with different sorption and
chemical affinities for the pollutants.
An alternative to the clarifier was tested for
removing bulk TSS upstream of the Colloid
Polishing Filter using direct, high crossflow
microfiltration. This new method reduces the
capital cost, increases performance, and
decreases the weight and area required for the
trailer and skid system that holds the CPFM.
The manufacturing process for FF 1000 sorption
material has been improved and is being readied
for production in large quantities with quality
control documentation for each batch.
A method has been developed to increase the FF
1000 bedlife, thereby allowing extra backwash
and rinse cycles, reducing the operational cost,
and decreasing the annual quantity of spent bed
material requiring landfill disposal.
A.4 Applications of the System
The CPFM can be used as an in-line system
mounted on a trailer or skid. Examples of commercial
and government project applications are provided below.
In-line, trailer-, or skid-mounted polishing filter
for the removal of heavy metals from
groundwater, wastewater, or soil washing
secondary wastewater
Naturally occurring radioactive materials
(NORM)-contaminated production water
Remediation of NORM-contaminated
groundwater, production site, and equipment
decontamination and decommissioning
wastewater
Remediation of uranium and thorium mine and
milling tailings pond water, groundwater, and
wastewater
Treatment of LLRW-contaminated groundwater
and wastewater from nuclear reactors and power
plants
Treatment and remediation of LLMW-
contaminated water following pretreatment to
remove or destroy Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)-regulated organic
pollutants
Commercialization of the CPFM started slowly in
late 1992 and early 1993 at small industrial plants,
treating heavy metals in wastewater. By early 1994,
afer the bench and demonstration tests were completed
at RFETs and tests at the DOE Hanford Site, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, and Los Alamos National
Laboratory, use of the methodology increased
substantially. Table A-l summarizes the types of 1994
projects at FFT. Two-thirds of the 25 projects are
directly related to DOE NPL sites and one-third are
from the private industrial sector.
A.5 Factors that Decrease Performance
Bench and pilot testing should be carried out at each
project site to achieve high percent removal efficiency
and decontamination factor values for heavy metals and
radionuclide water pollutants. These tests enable system
operators to optimize the treatment train parameters and
identify the presence of competing or inhibiting chemical
or physical factors. For the CPFM, several factors have
been identified that can limit the technology's
performance and increase treatment costs, and are listed
below:
Water chemistry not optimized
Moderate to high TSS
Freezing temperatures
Hydrocarbon contaminants
67
-------
Table A-1. Summary of the 1994 CPFM Projects at FFT
CPFM Project Location
Treatment Category
Wastewater
Groundwater
Decontamination and
Decommissioning/Soil Washing
(Secondary Wastewater)
Miscellaneous
DOE NPL
Number of
Projects
5
4
5
2
Site*
Percent of
Total
20%
16%
20%
8%
Industrial
Number of
Projects
6
1
1
1
Plant
Percent of
Total
24%
4%
4%
4%
Notes:
NPL SITE refers to National Priorities List for radioactive contaminated sites.
68
-------
NH4-ions for copper and uranium
Influent pH of less than 6 or more than 10
Flow rate less than 1 gpm
Limited bed capacity
Microalgae or turbidity
Metallic/radionuclide concentration too high
A.6 Advantages of Methodology
The CPFM offers several advantages over
conventional filtration, ion exchange, and reverse
osmosis methods for the treatment and remediation of
metallic water pollutants. Examples of advantages
include:
Efficient equipment design translates to higher
performance capacity in physically less floor-,
trailer-, or skid-mounted square footage
More cost-effective treatment cost per 1,000
gallons of groundwater or wastewater treated
than with ion exchange or reverse osmosis
Removes colloidal and ionic heavy metal and
uranium, plutonium, americium, and reactor-
produced LLRW to levels not possible using
ultrafiltration or microfiltration
Has application for treating a wide range of
mono-, di-, tri- and multi-valent inorganic
metallic pollutants (and some complexed and
chelated forms) not possible using conventional
methodology
Generates substantially lower quantities of spent
bed material per unit volume water treated than
ion-exchange resins, which translates to lower
land disposal costs for hazardous and radioactive
wastes
69
-------
Appendix B
Case Studies
B.I Introduction
Representative examples of Colloid Polishing Filter
Method (CPFM) case studies are outlined in this section,
which also presents analytical test data to provide a basis
for estimating performance. Summary data are also
provided for capital and operational costs. This section
ends with a summary of performance and cost data.
These case studies represent a broad spectrum of heavy
metals and radionuclide treatment conditions for
ground water, industrial waste water, and U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) facility projects.
B.2 Representative Case Examples
The following sections describe representative CPFM
case studies.
B.2.1 Uranium Wastewater
Wastewater containing high concentrations of nitrate,
sulfate, and uranium stored in a wastewater treatment
system tank at a major west coast DOE facility has been
successfully treated by the CPFM system. The nitrate,
sulfate and uranium pollutants in the wastewater
exceeded sewer discharge permit criteria. In addition,
solidification, drum packaging, and low-level radioactive
waste (LLRW) landfill disposal were considered too
expensive. To treat this waste, FFT designed a
treatment train for on-site pumping and treating based on
biological denitrification, primary flocculation, high
crossflow microfiltration for solids removal, and use of
the CPFM system for uranium removal. This treatment
train reduced the remediation cost by one-third to one-
half the net cost of the LLRW land disposal option.
Treatment using the CPFM also allowed the operation to
meet the limits in the existing discharge permit. A total
of 11,000 gallons of water were treated in 8
bioremediation days plus 3 CPFM treatment days at this
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
facility. Water at this facility was contaminated with 50
to 60 milligrams per liter (mg/L) total uranium. After
treatment, the water contained less than 10 mg/L total
nitrogen, less than 250 mg/L sodium, and less than 0.10
mg/L total uranium.
B.2.2 Treatment of Strontium-90, Yttrium-90
Contaminated Groundwater
An average 5,000 gallons per day (gpd) of neutral pH
groundwater contaminated by strontium 90, tritium-90
(gross beta/gamma about 3,000 picoCuries per liter
[pCi/L]), trace heavy metals, and inorganic salts
presented a challenge due to intermediate turbidity that
inhibited the polishing filter system operation. The
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit issues focused on pH, turbidity, and the
gross beta/gamma activity, requiring a safe margin for
variability in the flow rate of 12 to 30 gallons per minute
(gpm). For this project, a specially designed chemical
reaction and microfiltration technique was employed for
turbidity treatment upstream of the CPFM system. This
treatment train removed strontium 90, tritium-90 and
trace cesium 137, and cobalt 60 radionuclide pollutants
operating at 99.5 percent to more than 99.9 percent
removal efficiency.
B.2.3 Treatment of Contaminated Wastewater
A metals reprocessing plant located in Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, produced depleted uranium-contaminated
wastewater at a flow rate of 10 gpm. The wastewater
required treatment prior to discharge under an NPDES
permit. High total suspended solids (TSS) wastewater
produced in reprocessing the depleted uranium was
collected in a sump and stored in an equalization tank for
neutralization, flocculation, solids removal, and filtration
70
-------
prior to discharge. A pilot study was successfully
carried out at the plant to evaluate an electrocoagulation
method and the CPFM as methods for uranium removal.
Problems with the electrocoagulation equipment
prohibited use of this method as a primary treatment for
the tests. For FFT's portion of the pilot study, the high
suspended solids sump water was pumped directly to
10-micron bag filters and into two CPFM units mounted
on a trailer. The total uranium concentration was
reduced by more than 99.9 percent with the discharge
stream activity being less than 0.1 pCi/L.
B. 2.4 Treatment of LLRW Wastewater
A LLRW waste water stream (averaging 12 gpm) at
a major DOE facility in the southeastern U.S. contained
ionic metal contaminants and less than 100 mg/L of total
dissolved solids (TDS), representing a mixture of trace
heavy metals and reactor-produced radionuclides. This
waste stream required efficient, cost-effective treatment
to meet NPDES discharge limits. FFT designed a skid-
mounted CPFM system that allowed the customer to
achieve the discharge limits for metals and radionuclides,
yet reduce the annual operational cost by one-third
compared to an ion exchange system. The cost saving
was due to the system's higher milli-equivalent per
pound of bed material advantage, extended bed-life, and
reductions in the quantity of spent bed material requiring
land disposal.
B.2.5 Treatment of Oil Production Wastewater Norm
Naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM)
contaminate crude oil via leaching during drilling
operations, then partition into the aqueous phase, and so
can be detected in the production wastewater subsequent
to oil and water separation. Wastewater from oil
production generally has low concentrations of NORM
and is not covered under the disposal criteria of the
original Atomic Energy Commission Act of 1954, the
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, or the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's standards. Recently,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) draft
guidelines have been prepared that may require oil (and
gas) production companies to treat the production water
prior to discharge. FFT has conducted extensive
scientific, technical, and engineering studies into the
problem of removing NORM from oil production water.
Test data indicate that CPFM has performed in the
percent removal efficiency range of 95 to more than
99.9 percent (decontamination factor values of 305 to
more than 1,000) based on gamma spectroscopy
measurements of radium 226. FFT has completed the
design and engineering for an offshore or land-based,
skid-mounted system that can treat 25 to 300 gpm of oil
production water.
B.2.6 Remediation of Norm-Contaminated
Wastewater
A Texas-based oil company is developing alternative
strategies for remediation of a major oil and gas
production site including tank batteries, sludge pits,
drilling pipe, and contaminated groundwater. FFT
carried out a series of laboratory and field tests to
evaluate the compliance issues and costs for remediating
the NORM, representing natural uranium, radium
226/228, and radon gas. CPFM was used to treat the
secondary wastewater fractions from liquified and
partitioned hydrocarbons and tank bottom sludges
containing NORM. The NORM activity in the treated
waste was consistently observed to be significantly below
EPA's drinking water standards. However, removal
efficiencies for the radionuclide radium 226 were less
than for other radionuclides.
B.2.7 Molybdenum in Uranium Mine Groundwater
Molybdenum is an inorganic metallic pollutant that
exists in a wide range of chemical and physical states in
water and is one of the most challenging metals to
remediate. A series of tests were conducted at a South
Texas uranium mine to compare molybdenum removal
by the CPFM versus conventional flocculation methods
to determine if the NPDES discharge permit limit could
be achieved. The CPFM successfully removed
molybdenum from groundwater, reducing the level from
49 mg/L to 0.4 mg/L.
Table B-2 provides an example of in situ uranium
groundwater molybdenum removal by CPFM compared
to filtration using conventional sorption and water
filtration agents. Each method was tested using aliquots
from the same groundwater sample at pH 7.1, adjusted
to pH 8.5 before rapid filtering through a 1-centimeter-
thick filter bed of the test material.
B.2.8 Removal of Selenium from Pit Water
A uranium mining site in the western U.S. routinely
employed soil dewatering as part of the mining operation
and excavated a large mining pit that stored hundreds of
millions of gallons of water contaminated by uranium
71
-------
Table B-1. Summary of Sample Sources and Pollutants for Case Studies
Sample Source and Pollutants
Smelting Plant Acid Water
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium + 3
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Tellurium
Vanadium
Zinc
Industrial Battery Plant
Lead
Analytical
Method1
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
Untreated Influent
(mg/L)
1640
358
1100
1
22
1
8
<0.1
<0.01
65
1094
Treated Effluent (mg/L)
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.10
Chemical Manufacturing Co. Wastewater
Chromium^3
ICP
23
0.3
Groundwater Contaminated with Chromium
Chromium*3
Chromium*6
Food Processing Plant Wastewater
Chromium*3
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Metals Finishing Plan Clarifier Effluent
ArsenJc
Cadmium
Chromium*3
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Tellurium
Vanadium
Zinc
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
(Texas) Run 1
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
2
1
0.06 - 0.10
0.07
0.10
0.05 - 0.07
0.01
1.30
<0.01
Trace
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
--
<0.052
<0.03
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
-
72
-------
Table B-1. Summary of Sample Sources and Pollutants for Case Studies (Continued)
Sample Source and Pollutants
Metals Finishing Plant Clarifier Effluent
Chromium + 3
Zinc
Metals Finishing Plant (Mexico)
Chromium*3
Zinc
Metals Finishing Plant (Mexico)
Chromium*3
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Oil Refinery Flexicoker Clarifier Effluent
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium*4
Tellurium
Vanadium
Zinc
Analytical
Method1
(Texas) Run 2
AA
AA
AA
AA
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
Untreated Influent
(mg/L)
0.15
0.08
1350
80
0.30
0.12
4.61
0.07
0.72
<0.01
<0.01
...
<0.01
0.42
0.75
<0.01
19.0
Treated Effluent (mg/L)
<0.05
<0.005
0.11
<0.1
0.03
<0.02
0.06
0.04
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Oil Refinery DAF Water (Preactivated sludge)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium*3
Copper
Nickel
Selenium*4
Tellurium
Vanadium
Oil Refinery Phenolic Sour Water Stream
Selenium*4
AA
AA
A A
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
(PH 8.2)
AA
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.15
0.16
0.10
1.20
0.170
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.005
73
-------
Table B-1. Summary of Sample Sources and Pollutants for Case Studies (Continued)
Sample Source and Pollutants
Carpet Manufacturing Plant Dye
Chromium*3
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Organic Dye
TSS/TDS
Analytical
Method1
Wastewater
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
Visual
Untreated Influent
(mg/L)
0.20
0.07
0.03
0.05
Brown Dye
High Solids
Treated Effluent (mg/L)
0.02
<0.03
<0.03
0.03
Clear Water
Low TSS, TDS
Circuit Board Manufacturing Wastewater
Cadmium
Chromium + 3
Copper
Iron
Silver
Zinc
Printing Ink
TSS/TDS
Printing Shop Wastewater
Copper
Zinc
Printing Ink
TSS/TDS
Textile Dye Wastewater 1
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Silver
Zinc
Organic Dye
TSS/TDS
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
Visual
AA
AA
Visual
GF
GF
GF
ICP
CV
ICP
ICP
Visual
...
0.06
0.02
1.45
0.28
0.05
0.10
Cloudy Dye
Moderate
0.10
0.71
Black Dye
Moderate
<0.003
0.0014
0.240
0.030
<0.001
0.030
0.130
Blue Dye
High Solids
0.001
0.01
<0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
Clear Water
Low
0.01
0.03
Clear Water
Low
< 0.003
<0.0005
0.140
<0.030
<0.001
<0.030
0.030
Clear Water
Low TSS, TDS
74
-------
Table B-1. Summary of Sample Sources and Pollutants for Case Studies (Continued)
Sample Source and Pollutants
Textile Dye Wastewater 27
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Uranium Mining (in situ)
Boron
Cobalt
Iron
Molybdenum
Selenium+4
Silicon
Silver
Strontium
Thallium
Vanadium
Uranium Mining Pit Water
Selenium + 6
Analytical
Method1
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
Untreated Influent
(mg/L)
0.008
<0.0005
0.0160
0.005
<0.0002
0.003
<0.0005
0.130
0.51 - 0.80
0.01 - 0.06
0.10 - 0.31
35 - 60
0.51 - 0.70
7 - 10
0.01 - 0.02
0.60 - 0.90
0.01 - 0.03
0.02 - 0.09
0.760
Treated Effluent (mg/L)
<0.003
<0.0005
<0.003
<0.002
<0.0002
<0.002
<0.0005
0.002
0.010 - 0.005
0.001 - 0.003
<0.001 - <0.005
0.050 - 0.5000
0.005 - 0.008
0.010 - 0.020
0.002 - 0.005
0.015 - 0.020
0.001 - 0.005
0.001 - 0.002
0.005
Notes:
TSS
TDS
Analytical Method refers to: Graphite Furnace (GF), Inductivity Coupled Plasma Emission (ICP), Atomic
Absorption (AA), or Cold Vapor (CV) Spectroscopy.
Represents separate batch runs on different days.
Total suspended solids
Total dissolved solids
No result
75
-------
Table B-2. Molybdenum Atomic Absorption Analysis Concentration
Treatment Material/System Effluent Concentration
(mg/L)
Control (unfillered) 49
Magnesium Oxide 48
Bone Charcoal 4Q
Activated Alumina 33
Diatomaceous Earth 3g
Aluminum Sulfide (Floe/filter) 35
Alum 22
0.4
76
-------
and selenium. A double-blind study was conducted by
the geological engineer at the mine to assess technologies
for the removal of selenium (Se+6) at concentrations of
500 to 800 mg/L, which constituted 98 percent of the
total selenium in the pit water. After reviewing the
available methodologies, seven methods were tested that
appeared to hold promise as remediation methods for
removing Se+6. Based on independent, EPA-certified
laboratory analysis of duplicate test runs, the mine
engineer determined that CPFM had the best
performance at more than 99 percent removal efficiency,
with some samples being reduced from an average 0.750
mg/L to the analytical detection limit of 0.002 mg/L,
using graphite furnace analysis.
B.2.9 Selenium in Oil Refinery Wastewater
Selenium is commonly found in certain crude oil
from the U.S. and the Middle East regions and
ultimately is detected in the refinery wastewater. A
major west coast oil refinery commissioned a series of
tests by an environmental engineering group to evaluate
selenium (Se+6 and Se+4 oxidation states) removal from
refinery sour water. (Sour water is; wastewater having
moderate to high concentrations of phenolic chemical
oxygen demand [COD] upstream to the aeration ponds
used for biodegradation of the COD.) CPFM
successfully removed the Se+6/Se+4 in the process waste
containing an average phenol concentration of 0.900
mg/L from 0.170 mg/L influent to 0.005 mg/L treated.
These results were based on duplicate test runs analyzed
for total selenium by an independent commercial
laboratory and the consulting engineering group.
B.2.10 Treatment of Chromium in Soil Washing
Wastewater
At a chemical products distribution company in New
Mexico, leaking storage tanks contaminated an estimated
120 cubic yards of sandy soil with trace hydrocarbons
and chromium (Cr+3). Core samples indicated the Cr43
ranged from 16 to more than 1,200 mg/L, representing
both a leachable and a nonleachable species. During
remediation, the leach water contained moderate to high
levels of suspended solids and total chromium ranging
from 122 to 450 mg/L, which was used as the influent
water to the FFT wastewater treatment system. A
primary pH adjustment tank, flocculation tank, and
clarifier reduced the total chromium to an average 15
mg/L, which was polished by the CPFM to less than
0.03 mg/L.
B.2.11 Metals Roofing Manufacturer - South Texas
At this facility, trace light oil hydrocarbons
containing hexavalent chrome and zinc with high TSS
content were being treated using an oil skimmer
followed by chrome reduction to Cr+3; primary lime
flocculation; and polymer agglomeration. Suspended
solids were removed using an inclined plate clarifier and
sand filter bed. The discharge stream had a pH 7.8 to
8.2 and consistently contained chromium and zinc
concentrations in the 0.10 to 0.80 mg/L range, which
exceeded the NPDES discharge permit limits of 0.01 for
chromium and 0.05 for zinc. Numerous changes and
modifications in the treatment train chemistry failed to
correct the problem. Two deep bed-type (6 feet high,
back-washable) CPFM tanks were installed to polish the
sandfilter water at 6 gpm based on bench test results.
The chromium and zinc concentrations detectable in the
discharge water downstream from the CPFM were
lowered to less than 0.01 mg/L for both metals, meeting
permit discharge standards.
B.2.12 Metals Finishing Wastewater Copper and Zinc
A major manufacturing company located in the
northeastern U.S. generated 32,000 gpd of heavy metals-
contaminated wastewater from copper metal scrubbing,
cleaning, and treatment processes. Acidic wastewater
contained moderate levels of suspended solids and
complexed or chelated copper and zinc. FFT designed
a modified treatment train using CPFM that consistently
removed the metals to levels not achieved by reverse
osmosis or ion exchange methods. In addition, the net
cost per 1,000 gallons treated was reduced by one-third
compared to the original primary treatment method that
was being used.
B.2.13 Hazardous Waste Incinerator Metals
Wastewater Treatment
A hazardous waste incinerator plant in South Texas
generated rinse water containing arsenic, copper,
selenium, nickel, lead, zinc, and antimony at a combined
concentration fo 6 to 10 mg/L. This effluent could not
meet NPDES discharge permit limits due to intermittent
spikes in the concentrations. The spikes resulted from
waste from one customer. Assessment of the primary
chemistry treatment methods being used indicated that
the ferric chloride reaction tank and subsequent
flocculation tank were inadequately treating the
wastewater. Discharge compliance was achieved by
converting the primary reaction tank to a ChemSorb-500
77
-------
flocculation tank, changing the polymer in the
flocculation tank, and then polishing the low-TSS water
with the CPFM.
B.2.14 Treatment of Metals Wastewater for Volume
Minimization
A small chemical plant manufacturing company in
South Texas accumulated 115 cubic yards of metal
oxide, magnesium sulfate, and zinc dust sludges
containing cadmium, lead, and zinc. These wastes were
classified as hazardous by EPA toxicity characteristic
leaching procedure (TCLP) standards. Because the
sludges contained mainly water-soluble (and teachable)
metals, a simple, cost-effective solution to the problem
was suggested to the customer in lieu of expensive
commercial hazardous metals waste disposal. For about
$10,000, a slurry mixing box (second hand) and a
gravity sedimentation tank with a sludge pump were
purchased and set up at the company for water dilution,
mixing, and leaching the metals sludges and sulfates.
The sludges were processed in batches as needed and an
existing filter press was employed for dewatering the
leached solids prior to stabilization with FFT ChemSorb-
500 powder. The metals were removed in the filter
press wastewater using an FFT mobile unit equipped
with pumps, controls, a prefilter, and CPFM. Using
this method, the original cost of $700 per ton for the
metals sludge was reduced to $10 to $12 per ton and the
metals containing wastewater can be discharged to a
sewer under an existing publicly owned treatment works
(POTW) permit. The concentrations of the heavy metals
in the sludge wastewater were in the range of 35 mg/L
to 100 mg/L for cadmium, 300 to 100 mg/L for lead,
and 50 to 200 mg/L for zinc.
B.3 Performance and Cost Summary
Approximately 90 different groundwater and
industrial wastewater sites and 10 secondary wastewater
streams from soil washing have been tested using the
CPFM since late 1991. Generally, two-thirds of the
water samples yielded percent removal efficiencies using
the CPFM in the range of 99.4 to 99.9 for 18 different
heavy metals representing random, grab samples. The
other one-third of the samples required chemical
preconditioning or pH adjustment before using the
CPFM to achieve 98 to 99 percent removal efficiencies.
Uranium and transuranic pollutants (plutoniurn and
americium and other nontritium radionuclides) were
efficiently removed directly by the CPFM at 95 to 99.9
percent removal efficiencies, except in situations in
which the performance was compromised due to some
intrinsic water chemistry or interfering factors that
required pretreatment or optimization (for example, high
ammonium-ion concentrations for uranium and copper;
the presence of high suspended solids such as micro-
algae; and micro-aggregated or complexed forms of
technetium that require chemical pretreatment).
Bench-scale tests (and pilot tests when feasible) are
necessary so that the methodology can be adapted to the
specific conditions because each groundwater and
wastewater stream is chemically different and the
inorganic metallic pollutants can exist in a broad range
of chemical, physical, and oxidation state forms. In
addition, the CPFM sorption bed formulation can be
modified to match the specific contaminated water's
characteristics, and multiple sorption bed formulations
can be used in series to sequentially remove different
organic metallic pollutants.
Information is now available regarding the capital and
operational costs for the CPFM. The basic 25 gpm
(maximum 35 gpm) vertically configured CPFM unit has
been designed with five filter packs totaling 14.8 cubic
feet of sorption bed. Extra structural work and lead
shielding (averaging 3 inches thick) for this unit costs an
additional $10,000. The operational cost will depend to
a large extent on the volume of water being treated and
the project duration. Generally, for remediation
projects, 2 days setup and demobilization time are
adequate. Continuous treatment at 1 to 25 gpm is
feasible at a daily cost of $1,000 to $1,300 for a trailer-
mounted CPFM system and one operator, plus the
additional support staff and chemicals and supplies
required for the project. The average chemical cost for
heavy metals and uranium or transuranic pollutant
remediation is in the range of $1.00 to $1.50 per 1,000
gallons treated.
B.4 Bibliography
Johnson, T.S. 1994a. Colloid Polishing Filter Removal
of Heavy Metals, Uranium and Transuranic Water
Pollutants. 87th Annual Meeting Air & Waste
Management Association, Cincinnati, OH. June 19-
24. (Invited paper).
Johnson, T.S. 1994b. Colloid Polishing Filter Removal
of Heavy Metals, Uranium and Transuranic Ground
Water Pollutants at DOE RFP. 5th Forum on
78
-------
Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies:
Domestic & International, Chicago, IL. May 3-5.
(Invited paper).
Gatchett, A. and T.S. Johnson. 1994. Colloid
Polishing Filter Method, Filter Flow Technology,
Inc. EPA SITE Demonstration Bulletin. U.S. EPA
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Program. EPA/540/MR-94. March.
Johnson, T.S., and D.A. Pierce. 1994. Management of
NORM in Produced Water Offshore. Presented at:
Produced Water Seminary 1994, American Filtration
Society, Texas Chapter, League City, TX. January
20-21. (Invited paper).
Johnson, T.S., Rupert, M.C., Grace, S.R., and M.
Harris. 1993. Site Demonstration of the Colloid
Polishing Filter Method for Ground Water Treatment
of Uranium and Transuranics. Presented at the DOE
Fifth National Technology Information Exchange
(TIE) Workshop, Denver, CO. November 16-17.
(Invited poster).
Johnson, T.S. 1992. Filter Flow Technology, Inc.
1992. Colloid Polishing Filter Method SITE
Demonstration at Rocky Flats Plant, Golden,
Colorado: Draft Demonstration Plan. U.S.EPA,
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, SITE
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation,
Cincinnati, OH. January.
Laul, J.C., O. Erlich, C. Trico, T.C. Greengard, T.S.
Johnson, and R.O. Hoffland. 1992. Removal of
Uranium, Plutonium, and Americium from Rocky
Flats Wastewater. Spectrum '92 - Nuclear and
Hazardous Waste Management International Topical
Meeting, Boise, ID. August 23-27.
Johnson, T.S., and R.O. Hoffland. 1992. Heavy Metal
and Radionuclide Removal from Ground Water and
Wastewater Using the Colloid Filter Method,
American Filtration Society Exposition and Annual
Meeting, Chicago, IL. May 10-14.
Johnson, T.S. 1992. ChemSorb Dry Powder
Flocculation Method for Removal of Heavy Metals
and Dye from Industrial Wastewater. Second Forum
and Industrial Exhibition on Environmental
Protection, Monterey, Mexico. May 25-26.
Johnson, T.S., and R.O. Hoffland. 1991. Chemical-
Physical Filter for Heavy Metals and Radionuclide
Pollutants. Third Forum on Innovative Hazardous
Waste Treatment Technologies: Domestic and
International, Dallas, TX. June 11-13.
Johnson, T.S., and R.O. Hoffland. 1992. Colloid
Filter Removal of Heavy Metals and Radionuclide
Pollutants from Ground Water and Wastewater. U.S.
EPA Fourth Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste
Treatment Technologies: Domestic and International,
San Francisco, CA. Nov. 17-19.
Johnson, T.S. 1991. Filter Flow Technology, Inc.
1991. Heavy Metals and Radionuclide Filtration, In:
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Program: Technology Profiles Fourth Edition.
EPA/54015-911008. November.
79
-------
------- |