&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Research and Development
Cincinnati, OH 45268
EPA540/R-94/501a
July 1994
SITE Technology Capsule
Filter Flow Technology, Inc.,
Colloid Polishing Filter Method
Abstract
The Filter Flow Technology, Inc. (FFT), Colloid Polish-
ing Filter Method (CPFM) was demonstrated at the U.S.
Department of Energy's (DOE) Rocky Flats Plant (RFP) as
part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) pro-
gram. The CPFM system Is designed to remove ionic,
colloidal, and complexed radionuclides and heavy met-
als from water. Pollutants are removed from water pre-
dominantly via sorptlon or chemical complexlng. The
purpose of the demonstration was to evaluate the ability
of the CPFM system to remove low levels of uranium and
gross alpha contamination from RFP groundwater.
During the demonstration, average uranium and
gross alpha concentrations in Influent water were 98
mlcrograms per liter (^ig/L) and 91 picoCuries per liter
(pCi/L), respectively. Analytical results showed that ra-
dionuclide levels decreased by about 75% following treat-
ment with the CPFM system. At maximum removal
efficiency, the CPFM system was capable of achieving
Colorado Water Quality Control Commission (CWQCC)
standards for water to be discharged from RFP.
As part of the SITE program, the CPFM technology
was also evaluated based on nine criteria used for deci-
sion making in the Superfund feasibility study process.
The results of this evaluation Indicate that the CPFM
system can provide short- and long-term protection of
human health and the environment by removing radio-
nuclide contamination from water and concentrating It
in spent filter packs.
Introduction
In 1980, the U.S. Congress passed the Comprehen-
sive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabil-
ity Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund. CERCLA
committed resources to protecting human health and
the environment from uncontrolled hazardous wastes
sites. CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amend-
ments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) in 1986 amend-
ments that emphasized the achievement of long-term
effectiveness and permanence of remedies at Super-
fund sites. SARA mandated permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to clean up hazardous waste sites to the
maximum extent possible.
State and federal agencies, as well as private par-
ties, are now exploring a growing number of Innovative
technologies for treating hazardous wastes. Because the
sites on the National Priorities Ust comprise a broad
spectrum of physical, chemical, and environmental con-
ditions requiring varying types of remediation, EPA has
focused on policy, technical, and informational issues
related to exploring and applying new remediation tech-
nologies applicable to multiple Superfund sites. One such
initiative is EPA's SITE program. It was established to ac-
celerate development, demonstration, and use of inno-
vative technologies for site cleanups. EPA SITE Technology
Capsules summarize the latest information available on
selected innovative treatment and site remediation tech-
nologies and related issues. These capsules are designed
to help EPA remedial project managers, EPA on-scene
coordinators, contractors, and other site cleanup man-
SUPERFUND INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
agers understand the types of data needed to effectively
evaluate a technology's applicability for cleaning up Su-
perfund sites.
Results from an evaluation of the CPFM system, based
on the nine criteria used for decision making in the Super-
fund feasibility study process, are presented In Table 1.
This table shows that the CPFM system provides both
long-term and short-term protection of the environment,
reduces contaminant mobility and volume, and presents
few risks to the community or the environment.
This Capsule provides information on the FFT CPFM
system, a technology developed to remove low levels of
radionuclldes and heavy metal pollutants from ground-
water, wastewater, and soil washing wastewater. The
CPFM system was evaluated under EPA's SITE program in
September 1993 at RFP in Golden, Colorado where
groundwater Is contaminated with radionuclldes. Infor-
mation In this Capsule emphasizes specific site character-
istics and results of the SITE field demonstration at RFP. This
Capsule presents the following Information:
Technology description
Technology applicability
Technology limitations
Process residuals
Site requirements
Performance data
Technology status
Sources of further information
Technology Description
The FFT CPFM system uses a proprietary compound
(Filter Flow 1000) that consists of inorganic, oxide-based
granules. Filter Flow 1000 is formulated to remove radionu-
clides and heavy metals from water through a combina-
tion of sorption, chemical complexlng, and filtration. FFT
states that sorption on the Filter Flow 1000 accounts for
the majority of the removal action.
Filter Flow 1000 is contained In specially designed
colloid filter packs within a colloid filter press unit. The
colloid filter press unit is approximately 7 It high and 3 ft
sq. The four filter plates of the colloid filter press unit
support three colloid filter packs. The filter plates are 26 In.
sq, 2 in. thick and constructed of very strong plastic. One
colloid filter pack is located between each set of plates
within the colloid filter press unit. Each filter pack is con-
structed of a durable, fibrous, polymer material that con-
tains a premeasured amount of the complexing agent
Filter Flow 1000. Once the filter packs have been placed
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 plates are also designed to evenly
disperse water across the filter media.
Figure 1 is a process flow diagram of the CPFM system
used for the SITE technology demonstration at RFP. The
following main components comprise the CPFM system:
an Influent mixing tank, a miniclarifier with a small sludge
filter press, a bag filter, colloid filter press; units, and an
effluent pH adjustment tank.
The CPFM process involves the following basic steps:
(1) contaminated water Is pumped to an Influent mixing
tank for chemical preconditioning (pH adjustment or so-
dium sulflde addition), if necessary, to Induce formation
of colloidal forms of pollutants, (2) suspended solids are
then removed by an incline plate mlnlclarifler, (3) over-
flow water from the miniclarifler Is pumped through a
mlcrofiltration bag filter where particles greater than 10
microns in diameter are removed, (4) water passing
through the bag filter is pumped to the colloid filter press
units where heavy metals and radionuclldes are removed
by the sorption, chemical complexlng, and filtration ef-
fects of Filter Flow 1000, (5) treated water exiting the
colloid filters is pH adjusted prior to discharge. Following
treatment, sludge In the mlnlclarifler 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% solids. These two solid wastes
are combined for disposal.
During the demonstration at RFP, the CPFM system
treated contaminated groundwater collected by an in-
tercepter trench system constructed downgradlent of
the RFP solar evaporation ponds. Contaminated water
from the intercepter trench Is pumped to three open-top,
500,000 gal storage tanks (the Interim measure/interim
remedial action (IM/IRA) tanks), one of which stored influ-
ent for the CPFM system. Influent pH adjustment was not
required because the influent was within the optimum pH
range (8 to 9) for the CPFM system. The pH of the effluent
water was monitored in the final pH adjustment tank and
treated with hydrochloric acid to reduce the pH to its
original level before discharge to a second IM/IRA tank.
Technology Applicability
The CPFM technology is designed to remove non-
tritium radionuclides and heavy metals from water to
parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb) levels.
The CPFM technology can be used as a stand alone unit
to treat low-total suspended solids (TSS) water or in a
treatment train, downstream from other technologies such
as soil washing, or conventional wastewater treatment
using flocculation and solids removal. 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), uranium mine
groundwater. and transuranic and low-level radioactive
wastes from nuclear-related facilities with contaminated
water. FFT states that the CPFM system is designed to
treat a wide range of inorganic metallic pollutants in
water including colloidal, complexed, and ionic forms. In
general, low levels of radionuclides and heavy metals
are the most suitable for treatment by the CPFM system.
Under the SITE program, in addition to the full-scale
demonstration at RFP, the CPFM system has been tested
at a bench-scale level. The study used RFP intercepter
trench water that contained uranium-238 at approxi-
mately 35 pCi/L, and was spiked with up to 30 pCi/L of
plutonlum-239, americlum-241, and radium-226. The re-
sults from this study indicated removal efficiencies of
greater than 99% for uranium, plutonium, and americium
with no chemical pretreatment. Removal efficiency for
-------
Table 1. Criteria Evaluation for the CPFM Technology
Criteria
Overall Protection of
Human Health and
the Envronment
Provides both short-
and long-term
protection by
efminating exposure
to contaminants in
groundwater.
Prevents off-site
migration through
sorption on filter
packs.
Compliance with
Federal ARARs
Requires compliance
with RCRA treatment,
storage, and land
disposal regulations
(of a hazardous
waste).
Wastewater discharges
require compliance
with Clean Water Act
regulations.
Long-Term
Effectiveness and
Permanence
Effectively
removes and
stabiSzes
contamination.
Involves wet-
demonstrated
technique for
removal of
contaminants.
Involves some
residuals treat-
ment (filter cake,
wastewater) or
disposal (PPE).
Reduction of
Toxhity. Mobility.
or Volume Through
Treatment
Significantly reduces
toxidty, mobiity,
and volume of
contaminants through
treatment
Short-Term
Effectiveness
Presents few
short-term risks
to workers and
community.
Some personal
protective equip-
ment required
to be worn by
operators.
The system can
relatively rapidly
reduce large vol-
umes of contam-
inated water to
dean water and
fitter cake.
Implementability Cosf
Involves few $15 per 1000
administrative gal to $0.50
difficulties. per 1000 gal
Involves few
utility require-
ments including
water, electricity,
and compressed
air.
Once on site, the
treatment system
can be oper-
ational within
1 week.
Community
Acceptance
Minimal short-term
risks presented to
the community
make this technology
favorable to the public.
State
Acceptance
If remediation is
conducted as part of
RCRA corrective
actions, state
regulatory agencies
may require permits.
Notes:
Actual cost of a remediation technology is highly specific and dependent upon the original and target cleanup level, contaminant concentrations, groundwater characteristics, and volume of water. Cost dat
presented in this table are for treating groundwater at 100 gpm for 1 year.
-------
Mini Clarifier
Mixing
Section
Influent
Mixing Tank
-cr
Bag
Filters
Colloid
Filter Press Units
F//ter Press
So//ds To Disposal
_ pH Adjustment or
Chemical Pretreatment
Solids
To
Disposal
Effluent pH
Adjustment Tank
Hydrochloric
To
Discharge
Legend
[X]
M
Tan/f
M/xer
F/OJV Direction
Sample
Port
Note: Colloid Filter Units can be Operated!
/n Series or Parallel Modes.
(Only Series Shown Here)
Figure 1. CPFM Treatment System.
gross alpha was 86%. These test runs showed only 43%
removal efficiency for radium.
Technology Limitations
In general, the CPFM technology is designed to re-
move trace to moderate levels (less than 1,000 ppm) of
non-tritium radionuclides and heavy metal pollutants
present in water. The CPFM technology will not remove
tritium because of its chemical characteristics. Tritium in
water is incorporated in water molecules and is therefore
not retained by Filter Flow 1000. Only tritium associated
with TSS will be removed by the bag filter upstream of the
colloid filter units. Although future testing of this technol-
ogy may show differently, preliminary results and theoreti-
cal investigations do not indicate potential tritium removal.
Because high organic compound concentrations may
interfere with the chemical and physical reactions occur-
ring between Filter Flow 1000 and charged radionuclide
and heavy metal pollutants, water with high organic com-
pound concentrations is not treated as effectively by the
CPFM technology.
Process Residuals
The CPFM process generates two waste streams:
treated effluent and filter cake. Demonstration analytical
results for composite samples shown in Table 2 indicate
that effluent from runs 1 and 4 were near CWQCC dis-
charge standards for uranium and gross alpha.
The filter cake generated during the demonstration
was tested for hazardous waste and radiation character-
istics and Is being stored at RFP pending disposal at an
EPA- and DOE-approved facility. The EPA, paint filter liq-
uids test, performed at the time of waste packaging,
indicated that the wastes do not contain free liquids. The
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure was also per-
formed on the filter cake solids. Table 3 shows that
composited filter cake solids from the demonstration did
not contain leachable radionuclides, or leachable met-
als at levels above EPA standards (40 CFR Part 268). In
addition. Table 4 indicates that uranium and gross alpha
activities were very low for filter cake solids from each
run.
Drummed personal protective equipment (PPE) was
screened for radioactivity and disposed of in accordance
with state and federal requirements. Wash water from
decontamination was collected and placed in a 1,000
gal storage tank prior to acceptance by a wastewater
disposal facility at RFP.
Site Requirements
All process equipment is mounted and operated on
the bed of a trailer. Access roads are needed for equip-
ment transport. A paved or well graded gravel area of
approximately 450 sq ft is also needed to accommodate
the CPFM unit, support equipment, and facilities. In addi-
tion, berms are needed for spill containment. Once on-
site, the unit can be operational within a week if all the
necessary facilities utilities, equipment, and supplies are
available.
Utility requirements for the CPFM system are water,
electricity, compressed air, and a telephone. Clean pro-
cess water Is required for system operation and decon-
tamination of equipment and personnel. Fire hydrant
water was provided by the site operator for the demon-
stration. The CPFM system used for the demonstration
-------
Table 2. Analytical Results from the CPFM SITE Demonstration
Influent
Intermediate
Effluent
Parameter Run
Number
Uranium (ng/L) 1
Gross Alpha (pCi/L)
Uranium (pg/L) 2
Gross Alpha (pCi/L)
Uranium (ng/L) 3
Gross Alpha (pCi/L)
Uranium fyig/L) 4
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
100/110
104
100
Composite/
Duplicate
60/60
40
92
84
94
36
64
71
Grab/
Duplicate
62
77
98/94
68/110
94/92
110/57
55
50
Composite/
Duplicate
9.5/9.6
13
38/38
53/47
23/25
27
5.1
3.7
Grab/
Duplicate
3.4
9.4
43
24
7.9/8.3
0/25
19
11
CWQCC*
Standards
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
* Colorado Water Quality Control Commmission
Table 3. Analytical Results for TCLP Extract Solutions
Parameter
Run 5 Pack 1
Run 5 Pack 2
Regulatory Level (mg/L)
Uranium (fig/L)
Gross Alpha (pCi/L)
Arsenic (iig/L)
Barium (pg/L)
Cadmium (ng/L)
Chromium (ng/L)
Lead(fig/L)
Mercury (pg/L)
Selenium (ng/L)
Silver (\ig/L)
1.0U
82U
380U
2,640
SOU
40U
290U
10U
10U
40U
1.0U
290U
380U
4,780
SOU
40U
290U
10U
10U
40U
6.0
100.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
0.2
1.0
5.0
U = undetected at this value
Table 4. Analytical Result for Filter Pack Solids
Parameter
Uranium (pg/g)
Gross Alpha (pd/g)
Run 1
2.1
13U
Run 2
2.1
12
Run 3
3.4
15
Run 4
Packl
2.6
8.1
RunS
Pack 2
4.7
11
RunS
5.7
12U
U = undetected at this value
requires 120-volt, 30-amperes electrical service and a
minimum of 100 psi compressed air supply for the process
equipment and field laboratory equipment. For the dem-
onstration, gas powered generators and an air compres-
sor were used. Telephone service is required mainly for
ordering equipment, scheduling deliveries, and commu-
nicating emergencies. A cellular telephone was used
during the demonstration,
Additional equipment and supplies included a 1,000-
gal water storage tank for decontamination rinse water.
equipment for filter cake disposal. Including 66-gal drums
and a forklift with operator, sampling equipment and
containers, and health- and safety-related gear.
After treatment Is completed, the treatment system
can be demobilized within 1 week. This activity includes
equipment decontamination and utilities disconnection.
Demobilization following the demonstration took approxi-
mately 1 week.
Performance Data
The CPFM technology was developed to treat water
contaminated with radionuclides and heavy metals. Wa-
ter from the RFP IM/IRA storage tanks was selected as a
source of contaminated water for the demonstration be-
cause the principal contaminants in groundwater at RFP
were expected to be uranium, radium, plutonium, and
-------
americium. Following the bench scale testing, the con-
tamination in RFP water was determined to be domi-
nantly uranium and gross alpha. Therefore, these
contaminants were considered the critical parameters
and radium, plutonlum, and americium were considered
secondary parameters.
The CPFM technology was evaluated to determine
appropriateness for use in removing radlonuclides from
RFP water. The objectives for the project 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 re
quirements, for the treatment system
Estimate costs associated with the operation of
the CPFM system
Assess the technology's ability to remove other
radlonuclides (plutonlum, americium, and radium)
Evaluate the disposal options for preflltered solids
(miniclarlfler and bag filter solids) and spent filter
packs from the colloid filter unit
The demonstration was comprised of three tests. The
first test consisted of three replicate runs of 4 hr each, at
operating parameters established by the developer.
Three runs were conducted during this test in order to
collect enough data to statistically evaluate the CPFM
system's ability to meet CWQCC standards. For these
runs, the colloid filter presses held three filter packs each
and water was routed through the packs In series. Dur-
ing these three runs, process parameters Including flow
rate (5 gal/mln), and amount of filter bed material (30
kilograms of Filter Flow 1000) were held constant. For the
second test, sodium sulfide was added to the influent
water in the pretreatment tank to change the oxidation
state of radlonuclides in water. This test consisted of one
run; using the same operating configuration and condi-
tions as the first test. The purpose of this test was to
determine whether pretreatment could be used to im-
prove CPFM performance that may be required to at-
tain CWQCC standards. The third test was a 15-hr run.
This test used only a single pack in each colloid filter
press. This run was designed to determine the time of
breakthrough and the amount of contamination each
filter pack is capable of treating. This information was
then used in evaluating the operational costs of the
CPFM system.
During the demonstration, samples were collected
of the untreated water (influent), pretreated water after
passing through the miniclarifier and bag filter (interme-
diate), and treated water that had passed through the
filter packs (effluent). Filter cake was also analyzed.
Samples were analyzed to determine the technology's
effectiveness and evaluate disposal options for filter cake.
Analytical results for uranium and gross alpha from
runs 1 through 4 are presented in Table 2. Runs 1 through
4 were designed to collect sufficient data to do a statis-
tical evaluation of CPFM system capabiliHes. Therefore,
composite, grab, and replicate samples v/ere collected
and analyzed.
Assessment of data quality for the critical param-
eters 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%. However, 3 out of 20
matrix spike recoveries for gross alpha were outside of
these control limits. Duplicate uranium analyses were all
well within ± 20%. Samples and duplicates yield an r2
value from linear regression of 0.99, Indicating that ura-
nium analyses had good precision. However, 12 out of 20
duplicate gross alpha analyses exceeded + 20%. Samples
and duplicates yield an r2 value from linear regression of
0.15, Indicating poor precision of gross alpha data. There-
fore, only uranium analyses are considered reliable for
assessing the performance of the CPFM system and gross
alpha data should be Interpreted with caution.
Figures 2 and 3 show graphically the removal of ra-
dionuclides in runs 1 through 4. Figures 4 and 5 show gross
alpha and uranium concentrations, respectively, for sam-
pling during the breakthrough assessment of run 5. Where
possible, only composite data were used to construct
these figures (where replicate composites exist, an aver-
age value was used). Composite gross alpha and ura-
nium concentrations for influent for runs 1 through 3, varied
from 62 to 110 pCI/L for gross alpha and 89 to 104 ng/L for
uranium. Analytical results for composite samples of Inter-
mediate waters from these three runs show a range of 36
to 84 pCI/L for gross alpha and a range of 60 to 94 ja.g/L
for uranium. Analytical results for composite effluent wa-
ter from runs 1 through 3 show gross alpha values that
range from a low of 13 pCi/L for run 1 to a high of 53 pCi/
L for run 2. Similarly, analytical results for uranium ranged
from a low of 9.5 ng/L for run 1 to a high of 38 jig/L for run
2.
Removal efficiencies for runs 1 through 4 were calcu-
lated using composite data and are shown in Table 5.
(Where replicate composites exist, an average value was
used.) Overall removal efficiencies for uranium during runs
1 through 3 ranged from a low of 58.4% to a high of
90.6%. Overall removal efficiencies for gross alpha for runs
1 through 3 ranged between 33.3% and 86.8%. Overall
removal efficiencies for uranium and gross alpha for run 4
were slightly better than the best of the initial 3 runs (run
1) with 94.8% and 94.3% removal, respectively. It should
be noted that only in run 4 were the CWQCC standards
for composite sampling met. Though removal Is largely
attributable to the colloid filter pack, significant removal
of uranium occurred in runs 1 and 4 prior to the colloid
filter unit. Significant pre-colloid filter removal of gross
alpha is also indicated for runs 1 and 3.
Analytical results for plutonium and americium showed
that these elements were at or near method detection
limits. Therefore, the ability of the CPFM system to remove
them from RFP groundwater could not be properly evalu-
ated. Results for radium analyses indicated that the CPFM
system did not remove radium from RFP groundwater.
The results from run 5, the breakthrough run, are pre-
sented graphically in Figures 4 and 5. These result Indicate
that using a single colloid filter unit, breakthrough oc-
curred prior to the first sampling time at 120 min or that
the single pack was not capable of removing significant
contamination. This result was not expected based on
the information Initially provided by FFT. On average, only
a slight reduction in the influent uranium and gross alpha
-------
I
I
1
120
100 .
80 .
60 .
40 _
20
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
E3 Run 4
Influent
Intermediate
Effluent
Figure 2. Gross alpha concentrations for runs 1 through 4.
c"
;§
£
§
§
I
I
120
100
80
60
40
20
Influent
Intermediate
Effluent
Figure 3. Uranium concentrations for runs 1 through 4.
-------
Gross Alpha
Concentration
(pCi/L) Removal
Efficiency
1 o/ \
160 _
140 .
120 .
100 ,
80
60 .
40 .
20 .
0
( '°
Mean Influent
Mean Intermediate (12)
//
/
Mean ~~
Effluent
120 240 360 480 540 600 660 720 780 840 900
1
0
- 40
- 60
- 80
100
Time (minutes)
Figure 4. Gross alpha concentrations for run 5 effluent. Solid squares correspond to concentrations and removal efficiencies.
Uranium
Concentration Removal
(mg/L) Efficiency
(%)
140 -
120 ,
100 _
80 .
60
40 .
20 -
0
r Mean Influent Mean Intermediate (L2)
._- -~" "'""- --.p.- -B"" »~><-*»^ _^-**^
^ ' / .
Mean Effluent
m
I I I 1 I I I I I I
0
- 20
- 40
- 60
- 80
100
120 240 360 480 540 600 660 720 780 840 900
Time (minutes)
Figure 5. Uranium concentrations for run 5 effluent. Solid squares correspond to concentrations and removal efficiencies.
-------
Table 5. Removal Efficiency Results for Runs 1 through 4 for the CPFM SITE Demonstration
Parameter
Uranium (ng/L)
Gross Alpha (pCi/L)
Uranium (ng/L)
Gross Alpha (pCi/L)
Uranium (fig/L)
Gross Alpha (pCi/L)
Uranium (ng/L)
Gross Alpha (pCi/L)
* Overall removal et
Run
Number
1
2
3
4
ficiency
Influent
103
98.5
91.5
75
102
110
98
65
Intermediate
60
40
92
84
94
36
64
71
Effluent
9.6
13
38
50
24
27
5.1
3.7
CWQCC
Standards
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Mini-Clarifier
and Bag
niter
Removal
Efficiency
41.7
59.4
-0.5
-12.0
7.8
72.5
34.7
-9.2
Colloid
Filter Unit
Removal
Efficiency
84.0
67.5
58.6
40.5
74.5
25.0
92
94.8
Overall
Removal
Efficiency
90.6
86.8
58.4
33.3
76.5
75.5
94.8
94.3
[Influent! - \Effluentf x WQ
[Influent]
' Colloid Filter Unit
removal efficiency =
flntermediate] - [Effluent]
[Intermediate]
x 100
Where: [] equals the concentration of the individual parameters
concentrations was observed In run 5. It should be noted
that data for this run are erratic, thus indicating that
performance of the system during discrete time intervals
may be unpredictable. 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.
Operating conditions documented during the dem-
onstration indicated that water treatment with a series of
colloid filter packs was successful In removing uranium
and gross alpha contamination from RFP waters. The dem-
onstration results also indicate that pretreatment of influ-
ent water with sodium sulfide improves CPFM system
removal efficiencies.
Disposal options for the used filter pack are deter-
mined by Its radionuclide and leachable metal content.
Table 4 shows that concentrations of uranium in the filter
cake ranged from 2.1 to 5.7 ng/g and gross alpha con-
centrations ranged from not detectable to 15 picoCuries
per gram (pCi/g). In addition. Table 3 shows TCLP test
results Indicating that the filter cake does not contain
extractable metals above regulatory limits.
Based on an economic analysis using a 1 -year treat-
ment scenario at 100 gal/min for 24 hr/day, 7 days/wk,
the treatment cost is approximately $15/1000 gal. This
cost Is reduced to $0.50/1000 gal using a 5-yr treatment
scenario. Costs can be expected to vary depending on
contamination type, level, and volume of water treated.
Technology Status
Ottier sites are considering the CPFM system. Pilot-
scale testing Is underway at the Oak Ridge National Labo-
ratory through a joint venture with Martin Marietta and
Dwight and Church. The pilot test will determine the CPFM
process effectiveness in treating mixed waste. In another
pilot-scale test, funded by the Westlnghouse Science and
Technology Group, the process Is being applied in a treat-
ment train to mixed wastewater that has been pretreated
to destroy organic compounds and remove suspended
solids. The CPFM system is also being used to treat metal
finishing wastes. FFT is also building a CPFM system in Peru
that will treat mine wastewater discharge that contains
copper, zinc, lead, and arsenic. In all, a total of 15 com-
mercial projects are planned or underway.
Sources of Further Information
EPA Contact:
U.S. EPA Project Manager:
Annette Gatchett
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Telephone No.: 513/569-7697
Fax No.: 513/569-7620
Technology Developer:
Tod Johnson, Ph.D.
Filter Flow Technology, Inc.
122 Texas Avenue
League City, TX 77573
Telephone No.: 713/554-5405
Fax No.: 713/554-5208
DOE Contact:
Beth Brainard-Jordan
Community Relations
DOE Rocky Flats Office
Rocky Flats Plant
P.O. Box 928
Golden, CO 80402-0928
Telephone No.: 303/966-5993
-------
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
EPA/540/R-94/501a
------- |